Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Airport Privatisation

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, it is our policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports. East Midlands was sold last summer. The BAA has operated private sector airports very successfully in Scotland and the south-east since 1987.

Mr. Coombs: Given the enormous success of the privatised British Airports Authority in running Heathrow and Gatwick, will my right hon. Friend encourage the privatisation of Birmingham airport, especially as it will need to attract additional private capital for the £400 million investment programme that it is planning for the next 10 years?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the success of the privatisation of the British Airports Authority. It has led—this is very relevant to his question—to a substantial increase in capital investment in

all its airports and to a great improvement in its services. It is much more enterprising and is now selling its services to countries overseas, which demonstrates the success of our policy.
I understand that Birmingham airport has substantial capital investment plans. It is right that those should be taken forward in partnership with the private sector and I welcome the fact that Birmingham intends to do so.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will not my constituents, who last year received £800,000 for the local authority from Manchester airport's profits, lose while the Minister's friends in the City gain from that absurd policy?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no reason why they should lose. The fact of the matter is that everyone has gained from the privatisation of the BAA. The passenger has gained very substantially. Instead of paying for capital expenditure from public resources, we now receive tax in return from the British Airports Authority. All round, it has been a very successful policy and I believe that it would apply just as well in Manchester.

Road Accidents

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning his proposals to reduce road accidents involving newly qualified drivers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: Since issuing the consultation document "New Driver Safety", we have received more than 500 representations supporting action in that area. Given that support, I am now taking forward four main proposals: retesting for serious traffic offenders among young drivers; a separate theory test; post-driver training linked to lower insurance premiums; and road safety education at 16-plus.

Mr. Brandreth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we have the best record on traffic safety of almost anywhere in the world? Since records began in 1926, the statistics are better than ever, despite a 14-fold increase in the number of vehicles. New drivers remain a critically


important area, as about 20 per cent. of accidents are caused by about 10 per cent. of licence holders. Can he give us some idea of the date on which he will be introducing the important measures that he outlined, especially that relating to post-driver training and insurance premiums?

Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that we have one of the best safety records in Europe and that the number of fatal accidents on the roads is lower than at any time than since accident statistics were first recorded in 1926. Given the huge increase in traffic, that is a substantial achievement. The greater proportion of accidents is among young drivers and new drivers generally. My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on that, as I have done. I hope to be able to introduce post-driver training linked to lower insurance premiums. Following my discussions with the major insurance societies during the past few months, I hope to be able to bring forward that scheme in the autumn.

Mr. Tony Banks: Although I welcome what the Minister said with regard to newly qualified drivers, will he tell the House what he is doing—and of his concern—about the elderly driver? Recently, there have been a number of accidents involving drivers aged 70 and over. Is not it about time that we set an upper limit, so that such people are retired from driving because, in certain cases, they are also a hazard on the roads?  [Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor: I heard an intervention from the Opposition Benches which suggested that the hon. Gentleman might take a different view once he reaches the age of 70. There is a much higher proportion of accidents among new drivers and that is why it is right to have special measures in that direction. The hon. Gentleman will know that retesting, medical certificates and so on are required for older drivers of a certain age and it would not be right to put a ceiling on those. Some people are capable of driving successfully and safely well beyond the age of 70.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and put it to him that it would be wise if the theory test were not too complicated? It should test obvious rather than arcane things, as there are a few simple causes for most traffic crashes.

Mr. MacGregor: There has been a general welcome to the idea of having a theory test before new drivers go on to the practical test. We are developing the theory test now, working with the National Foundation for Education Research. The theory test certainly must be in place by 1996 and I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Crossrail

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the future of crossrail.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We continue to support the crossrail project. We were disappointed by the Private Bill Committee's decision not to find the preamble to the Crossrail Bill proved. We are considering, with the Bill's promoters—London Underground Ltd. and British Rail—how best to proceed.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will expedite this matter as soon as possible, bearing in mind the considerable anxieties outside the House regarding the matter and the economic potential of the scheme in terms of creating jobs?

Mr. Norris: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the scheme and, as I said, it is for the promoters to find a way forward. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have made clear their support for the scheme and we are studying how best to take it forward.

Mr. Lidington: Has my hon. Friend had time to study the representations from organisations representing business and commerce in London and the south-east, and the united view of local authorities across party-political lines, which remains firmly that crossrail is needed in the national interest and particularly in the interests of our capital city and the south-east?

Mr. Norris: I have indeed, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the tremendous work that he has done in sponsoring the Bill in the House. We were disappointed that the Private Bill Committee did not find the preamble of the Bill proved and I know that that sense of disappointment was widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is a shame that, in examining how this condition might have been brought about, the role of the Liberal Democratic council in Tower Hamlets should have been so extraordinary. The Liberal Democrats' public national policy is to favour public transport and to be dreadfully anti-car, but it wants to make sure that those public transport schemes never come near a Liberal-controlled council.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister make a distinction between a link between crossrail and suburban, domestic services on Union Railways to Kent, and a link with a possible Stratford international station? Would not the latter provide useful links to international rail services from central and west London and add to the already 150-odd stations which would be directly linked to Stratford by fast rail services?

Mr. Norris: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the further development of Stratford. He rightly puts his finger on the considerable complexity which surrounds the linkage between crossrail, for example, and other rail systems such as a second rail link. In drawing attention to the difference between a straight link and the exchanges which might be possible in Stratford, the hon. Gentleman does the House a service. I cannot comment specifically on the proposals for intermediate stations or on the outline powers in relation to crossrail, because they are matters yet to be determined.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Crossrail Bill was scuppered by the votes of two Labour Members? Does he accept that he would have the gratitude of all the people of London if he undid the consequences of that unholy alliance between the Liberal Democratic party in Tower Hamlets and Labour Members?

Mr. Norris: The whole House is aware that the Private Bill Committee procedure has served the House for many years. Many hon. Members, including myself, who have


considered private Bills have considered how to address the principles behind those Bills entirely objectively. I would not dream of suggesting that that was not the case on this occasion. That does not detract, however, from the general disappointment felt on both sides of the House at the decision on crossrail.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister will be well aware, even though he did not tell the House about it, of the extent of support from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Labour party for the principle of crossrail. We believe that the Bill should be recommitted. Having said that, serious concerns remain about the funding of crossrail, particularly if substantial works are deemed necessary to establish links at both ends of the route and to meet environmental concerns. Will the Minister therefore give an undertaking, on behalf of his Treasury colleagues, that any such works deemed necessary should not be prejudiced or sacrificed for lack of public finance?

Mr. Norris: We have always insisted, quite rightly, that the scheme should be taken forward in conjunction with the private sector and we anticipated substantial private sector investment. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed. There are great merits in that process, riot least in terms of the value engineering that the private sector can bring to such large projects. The Government have made clear their commitment through the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time a couple of weeks ago and the many statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and me. Any alteration to the scheme would obviously be a matter for the promoters, because they would have to determine how it should be funded and taken forward.

Freight

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight to be moved by rail rather than by road.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): We are encouraging rail freight in a number of ways. We have liberalised access to the rail network; facilitated the restructuring of British Rail's freight businesses prior to sale; improved the freight facilities grants scheme; introduced a new track access grant for marginal freight flows; and raised the maximum gross vehicle weight limit to 44 tonnes for combined road-rail transport.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rail strike, in which workers are demanding 11 per cent. for nothing whatever in return, will tip freight back on to the roads, which will be to the detriment of the environment and, of course, the long-suffering public?

Mr. Freeman: I hope that everyone accepts that significant pay increases cannot be afforded without compensating improvements in productivity. If inflationary pay settlements are awarded, costs and prices go up and that means freight is tipped back on to the roads.

Ms Jowell: Will the Minister urgently tell the director of Railtrack to undertake a study of alternative routes for freight other than through the centre of London? Does he accept that misery is caused to thousands of Londoners,

including my constituents, as a result of increased freight traffic? Does he also accept that 75 per cent. of freight traffic is intended for destinations outside London? Will he draw to Mr. Horton's attention the successful all-party lobby of Parliament today organised by the London Channel Tunnel Group as evidence of the extent of concern felt across London?

Mr. Freeman: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is yes—we have instructed Railtrack to consider an alternative west-about route through Redhill and it will consider the costs involved.
I understand the concerns of those who live by the west London line because of increased noise, particularly caused by the movement of freight at night. That traffic will be modest to begin with, but I will visit the line together with local Members of Parliament, Labour and Conservative, on 13 July.

Mr. Dunn: The Minister will be aware that those of my constituents who use the A20 and the A2 want a better balance between rail and road for the dispatch of freight to and from the Kent coast to London. As long as there is uncertainty about the movement of freight, caused by regular railway strikes called by the RMT union, will not the effect be to keep freight on the road, ultimately damaging the environment of north-west Kent?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because, if one compares the rail freight and road haulage industries, he must be right. Every time a strike interrupts the supply of passenger or freight services, custom is lost. This strike, therefore, should be condemned by everyone with a real interest in supporting the rail industry.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Government have a cheek to attack railway people who go on strike for more pay, especially when the Government do not have the guts to introduce a pay policy and instead use a policy based on the dole queue? They have someone permanently present at those talks when they are supposed to be outside. In any case, if the boss of Railtrack can get £120,000 for three days a week, why should the Government condemn workers who are trying to get a living wage?

Mr. Freeman: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made plain on a number of occasions over the past two years, there is widespread support in the country for the notion that one cannot afford to make inflationary pay increases of that significant size without compensatory improvements in productivity. We have been through this matter before. The days of something for nothing are finished.

Rail Services (Competition)

Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of competition on rail services.

Mr. MacGregor: Evidence from previous transport privatisations shows that the introduction of competition encourages the development of better-quality services. I am confident that customers—passengers and freight—will benefit from more services of higher quality, improved efficiency and better value for money.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. What effect will the industrial action by signalmen, who are asking for 11 per cent. without increased productivity and are supported by the Opposition, have on competition in the future?

Mr. MacGregor: One must bear in mind the fact that the competition is road and air, so it is important that Railtrack and British Rail be thoroughly efficient and competitive. The demand for a no-strings increase of at least 11 per cent. in signalmen's basic pay is inflationary and will not help the competitive position of Railtrack or the railway services. On Monday, the Railtrack board offered a 2.5 per cent. annual pay increase, which is in line with many other pay offers in both the public and private sectors. It also offered, and is keen to have, talks on major reforms and restructuring of signalmen's terms and conditions. It is irresponsible and damaging to the railways for the unions to undertake a series of strikes on an 11 per cent., no-strings pay claim. It is important that the talks begin again and I am anxious that that should happen. The real question, however, is for the Opposition, who have been notable for their silence on this issue. Does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) approve of the strike for an 11 per cent., no-strings pay increase? Yes or no?

Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister believe that potential bidders for the franchise to run trains on the south-west line have an accurate picture of what they are letting themselves in for, given the reliability figures compiled for the passengers charter? Is not the Minister concerned that as important a flagship of Government policy as the citizens charter should compute inaccurate figures and measure wrong times? Some of the punctual trains are recorded as having gone twice and some less punctual ones are recorded as never having arrived. Should not a search party be sent out for the passengers who are in official limbo and compensation be given to season ticket holders?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the figures be accurate. If they are not, we shall certainly look at the matter.

Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the commuters of Reading are completely fed up with the strike, as a result of which many are now climbing on buses that run from Reading to London, which is an efficient service at about two thirds the cost? Does he agree that commuters will not return to the railways unless the railways wake up to the problem?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. That is the danger for jobs in the railway industry of a pay increase of at least 11 per cent. without any productivity improvements. However, I emphasise again that the chairman of Railtrack has said that he wants to achieve a settlement on the restructuring—which is separate from the immediate pay offer—which rewards the signalmen for their skills and gives them a modern employment package. That restructuring must offer value for money, for the reason that my hon. Friend gives, but it is quite separate from an 11 per cent. demand with no strings attached. That is why I call on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to condemn that demand and, above all, to condemn a strike that is damaging to the railways.

Mr. Dobson: If, as the Secretary of State asserts, it would be inflationary to find the £5 million that it would cost to pay the 5.7 per cent. increase that was offered by Railtrack and later withdrawn, what does he think the £7 million that Railtrack has expended on refurbishing its offices is? Is that inflationary or is it deflationary?
Was the offer withdrawn because the newly appointed bosses of Railtrack are incompetent, stupid and act in bad faith, or was it because the Secretary of State intervened and prevented them from making the offer, despite the fact that his departmental press office was lying and saying that there had been no ministerial interference?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made my position clear every time that I have been asked. I have frequent discussions with the board of Railtrack and members of the board of British Rail about public sector pay policy and I shall continue to do so. People would expect me to have a clear view about the Government's general position on public sector pay policy.
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not establish the facts about Railtrack's premises. I understand that the actual cost of the premises is £1.8 million, which is a very modest arrangement for a very important body.
The whole House will have noticed that, once again, the hon. Gentleman has not made clear his position on the strike. Once again, if he is silent, he is condoning a pay increase with no strings attached of at least 11 per cent., causing great discomfort to passengers and potential damage to the railways—a pay increase that few other people in the country in the public or private sector are receiving. I take it that he will now take the opportunity to condemn that strike as irresponsible.

Road Traffic (Hastings and Rye)

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited Hastings and Rye to assess its road traffic needs.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): On 19 May, I travelled along the A259/A27 south coast route from Dymchurch to Lewes, passing through Hastings and Rye, to see for myself the road for which we have 11 major schemes programmed.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and ask him whether he has seen the mischievous article in The Observer yesterday, which said that there might be some falling back in the plans for the A259 through my constituency. Is he aware of the worry that that will cause the nearly 13 per cent. of my constituents who are unemployed and can he assure me that the economic development of my constituency, which is so vital, will proceed speedily with the continuation of those road plans?

Mr. Key: Yes, I thought that it was mischievous, too. My hon. Friend is right about the economic importance of transport in her area. Much of the A259 is picturesque, but primitive to say the least. Rye certainly needs its bypass, although the tunnel is expensive. The biggest problem is the Winchelsea to Icklesham section and I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to reconsider the needs of the area. That landscape and heritage are not only spectacular but unique and I could not recommend to my right hon. Friend the construction of a new road in the Brede valley.

Rail Privatisation

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on passengers of the plans to privatise the railways.

Mr. MacGregor: Our proposals will result in better, more attractive services being offered to rail passengers through the introduction of private sector skills, innovation and responsiveness to passengers' requirements.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that better services for rail passengers are what is required? Does he also agree that the present strike is causing a great deal of inconvenience to rail passengers? Is not he amazed that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) still has not condemned the strikers?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the effect on some passengers deciding not to use the railways and I want it to be entirely the other way round. I want to build up more opportunities for railwaymen with a great many more people using the railways. Let me try it another way. I have said that I think that a strike on the basis of a pay claim of at least 11 per cent. with no strings attached is irresponsible in present circumstances. I have also said that the restructuring talks offer big opportunities to sort out the pay, terms and conditions of signalmen in a modern employment package. Might I therefore ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras whether he agrees that it would be desirable for the strike not to take place in order that the restructuring talks, to ensure value for money in any arrangements, may now take place? Perhaps he will make his position clear on that.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State been in one of the modern signal boxes? If so, has not he observed the incredible technology and the responsibility that signalmen now have—just as much as air traffic controllers? Has the right hon. Gentleman actually seen a signal box in operation?

Mr. MacGregor: These matters have been spelt out to me, and I know exactly what the issues are. That is why Railtrack is seeking a modern employment package for signalmen, with up-to-date terms and conditions, and I agree with Railtrack. That is precisely the point; separate discussions should continue on that, and the chairman of Railtrack has made it clear that he is keen to engage in such discussions. I support him, and hope that the strikes will be called off for that reason as well—to enable the talks to continue.

Mr. Michael Brown: If my right hon. Friend has difficulty in hearing me, it is because I have not used my voice in the Chamber for the past year.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the lesson that we learn from the experience of privatisation is that industrial disputes tend to be non-existent when we have privatised an industry? Is not the lesson of the current dispute that the sooner we put Railtrack into private hands, the better?

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I never have any difficulty in hearing him. I have had no difficulty in hearing him to great effect during the past year, and now the whole House can do so again.
We have made it clear that our aim is to privatise Railtrack in due course, at the appropriate time. The immediate need, however, is to ensure a modern

employment package for signalmen that is self-financing, offers value for money and is separate from the pay offer. I think that that should be done in a sensible way, without the threat of unnecessary strikes that damage the railway industry and, therefore, those employed in it. I repeat for the umpteenth time my request for the Opposition to make their position clear; and in doing so, I refer not only to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras but to the contenders for the party leadership, who have used fine phrases, but have run a mile from the first key issue that they faced.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail's signalling staff do extremely responsible jobs that are immensely important to everyone? Will he confirm that their representatives have been conducting negotiations about an improvement in their pay to reflect the improvement in productivity that has been taking place for several years? Will he confirm that the week before last those representatives believed that they had reached an interim agreement involving payment of 5.7 per cent. on account, and that that would be confirmed last week? Will he confirm that officials from his Department then summoned three members of the board of Railtrack and told them that it was not on, and that the boss of Railtrack had to be dragged back from his holiday—as did the chief negotiator, who had been holidaying in the West Indies?
Finally, does the Secretary of State recognise that it takes two sides to have an industrial dispute? Will he condemn Railtrack for its incompetence and stupidity—or will he condemn himself for intervening?

Mr. MacGregor: The Railtrack board made its offer last Monday afternoon. It was for a pay increase of 2.5 per cent.—exactly the same as the offer to British Rail, very similar to many other current public sector offers and, indeed, in excess of some private sector offers. The board also said that it was keen to undertake the restructuring talks as part of a separate exercise. The chairman of Railtrack has repeated that, and I strongly support him.
I repeat that it would be greatly in the interests of our reaching a sensible conclusion to this matter if the hon. Gentleman would condemn a strike based on an 11 per cent., no-strings-attached demand. We have all noticed that, despite many attempts to get him to do that, he has so far refused.

Sir David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a further rail dispute is to be avoided, it will take all the skill of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, this evening and beyond it, to reach a solution? Does he further agree that, once the talks are under way, the threat of industrial action should be suspended and that management must show great patience in its talks with ACAS to try to work out a solution and to avoid another dispute?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly hope that the talks can take place without further strike action, which would be unjustified and would be of no benefit to the railway system. However, the details of the negotiations on restructuring are a matter for the Railtrack board.

Diesel Cars

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of new cars sold used diesel fuel in each year since 1990.

Mr. Key: Six per cent., 9 per cent., 12 per cent. and 18 per cent. in 1993.

Mr. Williams: Despite the rapid rise in the popularity of diesel cars, the Minister is aware that a report earlier this year by the quality of urban air review group highlighted environmental problems with diesel cars, especially particulates—tiny soot particles—that are associated with lung cancer. What are the Government doing to persuade the motor industry to clean up emissions from diesel cars?

Mr. Key: Particulate emissions could prove a serious problem. However, on current levels of diesel penetration we expect particulate levels to decline. If diesel's share continues to increase rapidly, or if the Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants demonstrates that there is a need for further reductions in particulates, the Government may need to consider a range of measures to reduce levels.
Of course, further action on vehicles would need European Union agreement. The United Kingdom has supported European measures to cut emissions, which have been falling rapidly. Limits on particulates will be halved by 1996 and discussions have begun on further tightening. However, it is important to remember that diesels consume 23 per cent. less fuel, use less energy and produce 15 per cent. less carbon dioxide.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to diesel fuel. Can he confirm that, owing to price differentials, unleaded petrol accounts for 50 per cent. of the market?

Mr. Key: I can so confirm, and it is a major advance brought about by this Government. Indeed, it has been a more rapid advance than in other Community countries. It is important to remember that catalytic converters have had a dramatic impact on the levels of emissions from those cars fitted with them.

Ms Walley: Given the growth in traffic, is not it time that the Government paid more attention to the report from the 
Department of the Environment's quality of urban air review group? Should not there be some real action and should not we go back to the real reason why we have such problems—the fact that the current growth of traffic is unsustainable?

Mr. Key: The forecast growth of traffic will not have the impact suggested by the hon. Lady. The rapid decline in emissions more than makes up for growth.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, over the past five years, the Government have made considerable strides in improving emissions from cars? Does he further agree that one of the problems is that many older cars that could be transferred to unleaded petrol are not being transferred? A further problem is that many diesel-engined cars are still dirty and more tests are required to ensure that they are cleaned up.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; however, the problem with older cars that cannot be fitted with converters will, self-evidently, run itself into the ground. On the question of smoky diesels, there is already a smoky diesel line. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we properly maintain our cars. If motorists maintained their

vehicles, both diesel and petrol, to the proper standards recommended by manufacturers, we would not have the current emission problem.

Benzene Emissions

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the subject of benzene emissions from vehicle exhausts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Key: I have received several representations from hon. Members about the health effects of emissions, including benzene, from fuel. As a result of measures that we have already put in place, we are set to see a marked decline in all vehicle pollutants, including benzene, which will be sustained well into the next decade.

Mr. Miller: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has his Department evaluated the difference between unleaded and super-unleaded fuels and the aromatic hydrocarbons emitted from them? If not, will he, as a matter of urgency, call on the relevant Government research laboratories to start work on that especially important environmental consideration?

Mr. Key: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, not least because, of course, Associated Octel Ltd. is in his constituency.

Mr. Miller: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Key: I know that that has nothing to do with it, except that it means that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter; I am not for one moment imputing anything else. Yes, we have taken a great deal of interest in the problem of super-unleaded petrol, which has a higher octane factor than premium unleaded. It accounts for only 6 per cent. of the market, however, and the figure will decrease as more cars become capable of using premium unleaded. I am sure that this is just the first chapter in a long catalogue of matters that we need to address and are addressing through our professional advisers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Health Service Trusts

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 13, what progress has been made in the review of NHS trusts.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I understand that the National Audit Office expects to publish a review of Treasury management of national health service trusts in the autumn.

Mr. Hughes: That was the part of the answer that I could predict. In his reply on 18 April, the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Comptroller and Auditor General would reply to my letter about Guy's hospital "shortly". May I ask him how long is "shortly" and how soon I will get the answer?

Sir Peter Hordern: I understood that the hon. Gentleman had received a reply. If he has not, I will certainly see that he gets one and I apologise. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the decision on the


allocation of resources is a matter for the Department for Health. Once the decision has been made, it will be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General to study the matter if they see fit to do so.

Comptroller and Auditor General

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to discuss with the Secretary to the Cabinet the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not intend to do so. The powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General are matters for Parliament. They are set out in the Exchequer and Audit Department Acts, the National Audit Act 1983, and other legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it in the interests of Parliament for the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, to be undermined by a Minister resisting an inquiry by the National Audit Office, as happened in the case of the call that I made for an inquiry into industrial training in the United Kingdom?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am not aware of the circumstances, but I should be very surprised if a Minister had resisted such an inquiry. In any event, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has discussed his allegations with the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the Comptroller and Auditor General has agreed to produce a public report in due course.

Overseas Development Administration

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been made available by the Public Accounts Commission to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of the Overseas Development Administration.

Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission approved the National Audit Office's most recent corporate plan in July 1993 and its estimate for 1994–95 in December. We plan to meet to consider the 1994 corporate plan on 5 July. The voted funds enable the NAO to audit the financial accounts of Government Departments, including the Overseas Development Administration, and also to deliver about 50 major value-for-money outputs to Parliament each year. Selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money, including the ODA, but the final decision on whether to proceed with investigation is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Bayley: It has come to my notice that more than £500,000 from the ODA's budget is being spent on technical co-operation officers working to regulate tax havens in the Caribbean. That is in clear contradiction of the Government's stated policy of providing aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries. Why has not that been picked up by the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will the Chairman ensure that the Comptroller's; attention is directed to that matter to ensure that a proper evaluation

is made of whether Britain's overseas development technical co-operation programme is, indeed, delivering aid to poor people in poor countries?

Sir Peter Hordern: Let me see what I can do and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend suggest that the PAC investigate the huge increase in British exports to Malaysia as a result of the Pergau dam contract and the consequences for British exports of the campaign against that contract that is being run by Opposition Members?

Sir Peter Hordern: The PAC may wish to continue its inquiries into the Pergau dam, but that is a matter for the Chairman of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General in consultation with each other.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Safety

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that road safety has improved in towns and villages which have recently been bypassed.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Bypasses of towns and villages greatly improve road safety, but often need to be accompanied by traffic-calming measures within the towns bypassed. Measures such as road humps and chicanes slow local traffic down and can reduce casualties by up to 70 per cent.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, when a new bypass is considered, any further road improvements should be anticipated? Is he aware that, in the village of Landbeach in my constituency, his Department is proposing a second bypass? It is not wanted by the residents and is a complete mystery to the local transport department, which sees no need for it.

Mr. Key: I had the pleasure of being in my hon. Friend's constituency only last week. Not surprisingly, the issue of the second bypass was raised with me then. I am aware of the questions raised by both the Landbeach and the Stretham bypasses, which, as local bypasses, are both priority 1 schemes. Consultants are now considering options around Landbeach and Stretham and the schemes are likely to become more in the way of on-line improvements than village bypasses. Against that background, and with the lack of local enthusiasm, which has been voiced by my hon. Friend so forthrightly, the consultants may need to consider the problems again.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Child Care

Mr. Dowd: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the results of the Commission's investigations into child care arrangements in Parliament.

Mr. A.J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A survey of potential demand for child care arrangements has been carried out under the aegis of


the Administration Committee. Following the decision of that Committee not to issue the report of the survey or to take any further action, the Commission is considering how to proceed.

Mr. Dowd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how disappointing most hon. Members will find that response? If he reads today's Order Paper, he will find that several of the questions tabled to him relate to this issue. That shows that there is widespread concern.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if a scheme were to be introduced tomorrow, it would benefit only the grandchildren of the staff in this place who raised this issue many years ago? If the problems are logistical and physical, will the right hon. Gentleman consider with the Commission the introduction of a child care allowance, perhaps through a voucher system, so that some immediate provision can be made pending the more long-term or permanent provision that is obviously so necessary?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should direct his disappointment at those of his hon. Friends and others who are members of the Administration Committee, and not at me, as I share a great deal of his disappointment. The provision of vouchers was one of the matters considered in the survey to which I referred. I hope that it will be possible to debate that and other issues, bearing in mind the fact that the Commission does not normally proceed to introduce a new service unless advised to do so by one of its Committees—in this instance, the Administration Committee—or following a debate in the Chamber as a result of which the House asks that the service be introduced.

Mr. Rathbone: May I welcome the Commission's reinvestigation of the subject, which shows that things have come quite a long way since the first child was born to a serving Member of the House, which was when my mother bore my half sister?
In thinking about child care in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the provision of nursery schooling as well as basic child care facilities? It seems to me that we have the most marvellous opportunity to provide that essential element of education for young people who happen to be children of Members of Parliamen't.

Mr. Beith: As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman's personal connections are without parallel in the House. The issue that he has raised goes much wider than that of child care provision from the point of view of the staff of the House, in which the Commission is interested. It will be for the House more widely to consider whether a scheme of child care provision or of vouchers should extend to Members and their staff. It is the involvement of both the House staff and the staff of Members that makes this rather a complicated issue with which to deal.

Electronic Information System

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what consideration the Finance and Services Committee is giving to the report by the Information Committee on the provision of a Parliamentary data and video network, HC 237.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans the Committee has to make provision for the introduction of an electronic information system for hon. Members and their staff.

Mr. Paul Channon (on behalf of the Finance and Services Committee): The Committee has already begun to consider the report from the Information Committee on the proposed network and it hopes to complete its consideration shortly.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much has been spent to date on developing the network? Can he assure me that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report before the recess so that progress can be made and so that hon. Members may have access to the network when they return in October?

Mr. Channon: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerns a matter that is extremely complicated; if he will allow me to do so, I will therefore write to him. On the second part of his question, I assure him that the House would have to have a debate before it proceeded to implement the report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already indicated that he hopes to hold such a debate before the summer recess.

Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the rest of the country and the world are talking about information super-highways, we in this place are still limping along a muddy footpath? Such a system could save the House a great deal of money. It could improve the way we do things in the House and would act as a beacon to encourage the rest of the country and the world to use information technology. Can my right hon. Friend give us a better idea when the network will be in place and when a decision will be taken, so that every hon. Member may have an appropriate piece of equipment to link into the network?

Mr. Channon: I will ensure that the views of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) are made known to my Committee when it meets tomorrow to discuss the matter. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) would like to take part in the debate when it occurs. If the House decides in principle to proceed with the recommendations of the Information Committee, we shall of course also look at ways of speeding the process up.

Disabled People (Access)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will authorise the expenditure necessary for a line of route for disabled persons to be created using the lift next to the Members' entrance; and what consideration he is giving to the structural consequences of the building and installing of new equipment to facilitate disabled access.

Mr. Beith: I understand that the Accommodation and Works Committee's inquiry into ways of improving access for disabled persons visiting the palace gives full consideration to the structural implications of any proposed modifications. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman's other comments to be brought to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Dalyell: As with all old, venerable and distinguished buildings, is not there a danger, in making structural alterations to this place, of really harming that which people have come to visit and to see? Given the understandable and correct demand that disabled people should have access, however, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would take very little imagination to use the lifts from New Palace Yard and, for that matter, from the other end, where Members of the other place have lift access to the main floor?

Mr. Beith: It is precisely the difficulty of accommodating changes to help the disabled in an historic structure which has meant that it has taken some time and very careful study to bring forward proposals to meet this pressing need. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are entrances that have lift access at each end of the building. The entrance at the other end of the building is probably more usable from the point of view of the size of the lift than the entrance at this end of the building. However, those considerations are very much in the Committee's mind and I am sure that the Committee will be glad of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Child Care

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will publish the results of the survey on child care in the parliamentary estate.

Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave earlier.

Mrs. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the parliamentary nursery campaign which, for 25 years, has advocated facilities for children in this place? Does he also agree that that matter affects not only female staff or female hon. Members but male staff and male hon. Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that he publishes the results of the survey, which will show quite clearly the huge need to have such facilities in place as soon as possible?

Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Lady's opening comments. I also agree that the debate which I feel will need to take place in the House should be informed by the results of the survey.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: What is the cost to the taxpayer of the survey and the related inquiries?

Mr. Beith: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figure.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what plans the Commission has to make public the information contained in the recent survey on child care in the parliamentary estate.

Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mrs. Campbell: Did the right hon. Gentleman read in yesterday's issue of The Independent on Sunday about the case of Julia Rainsbury, a catering assistant in the House who earns £154 a week and has to fork out £60 ;a week in

child care expenses? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not fair that Ms Rainsbury does not receive any subsidy towards her child care costs while all right hon. and hon. Members receive a subsidy in the form of free parking?

Mr. Beith: My own view is in favour of help with child care costs. I have spoken in the House in favour of tax relief on them, too. Direct child care costs do not attract tax relief at present, but those of a workplace nursery do. Important issues such as that came up in our debates. I thought that members of our staff put their case before the Committee with great dignity.

Sitting Hours

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress is being made towards reforming the sitting hours of the House of Commons.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the hours of working of the House.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to implement the Jopling report.

Mr. Channon: To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he is making with implementing the Jopling report.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I am currently engaged in constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). Our aim is to find ways of enabling the House to conduct its business in more sensible ways and with more sensible hours, without unacceptably reducing either the Government's capacity to carry out their programme or the Opposition's flexibility in deploying and pressing their case. It is my hope—I think that I can say "our hope"—that those discussions will enable us to map a way forward before the summer recess.

Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful to the Lord President of the Council for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that at least part of the low esteem in which the House is held by the general public stems from the barmy hours that we keep? Will he ensure that, in the discussions that he described, despite the recommendation of the Select Committee, he will consider bringing forward sittings into the mornings so that we might have something resembling a normal working day in which we could pursue a full-time single job as we were elected to do?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I would wish at this stage to hold out a significant prospect of going beyond the proposals in the report concerning the exchange, as it were, of some Wednesday mornings for some Fridays, but that is clearly one of the subjects of the discussion between the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and myself. As for what the hon. Gentleman called barmy hours, of course I should like to see further progress in avoiding late-night sittings, but I hope that he will not underestimate the extent to which we have already made progress on that front over the past decade or so.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: After considering the Select Committee's report, does my right hon. Friend agree that


time in this House could be more effectively spent if debates on the Floor of the House were properly timetabled and if Committee timetables were agreed in advance? One could then see whether it was feasible to serve on a Committee because one would know when it would finish. Will my right hon. Friend urgently pursue the Select Committee's recommendations and see whether the matter can be brought forward?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that there will be much sympathy with those thoughts among hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I detected the usual hostile muttering from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. Of course, the very matters to which my hon. Friend refers are among those being discussed in general terms by myself and the Opposition.

Mr. Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will never be unanimity about any proposals to reform the working of the House and that the present proposals represent the best compromise—unanimously supported—that has come forward for many years? Will he please make as speedy progress as possible? Did I hear him say that he hopes to have a debate before the summer recess—and if not, why not?

Mr. Newton: I certainly accept that they are constructive and worthwhile proposals, and they are bringing a constructive and worthwhile response. I do not think that I can go beyond that at the moment. If, as I hope, we are in a position to map a way forward before the summer recess, I would expect to seek an opportunity for debate on that map.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Lord President recognise that the idea that office hours should pertain in the House will have little impact on hon. Members who live outwith Greater London? What is essential is a pattern of sittings in the House like that in the European Parliament, which would enable us to balance our parliamentary, constituency and family responsibilities—along with a pattern of decentralisation to Scotland and Wales, of course.

Mr. Newton: Apart from the predictable but somewhat more tendentious last part of that question, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. We must strike a realistic balance between the different duties of Members of Parliament. I accept that greater certainty about the pattern of business is one of the prizes.

Prime Minister's Questions

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received over the format for Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Newton: The matter has been raised in a number of recent exchanges in the House, including some at business questions. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Procedure Committee decided last week to seek ideas on possible options from myself and from the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I shall seek to respond—as, no doubt, will they.

Mr. Winnick: Although the Prime Minister may have his reasons for wanting a change, will not Prime Minister's Question Time always be the subject of highly controversial matters? Without the open way in which we now put questions, hon. Members' questions on given subjects could be passed on to other Departments, placing Back Benchers at a vast disadvantage. The present system may have its faults, but the alternative seems to be worse.

Mr. Newton: In view of the all-too-characteristic aggression with which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, I should say that I understand that the matter was raised in the House not by the Prime Minister but by other hon. Members, who expressed concern about the format. No one is seeking to avoid proper questioning, let alone controversy. The question is whether the present format is best organised to achieve its aims in a satisfactory way.

Points of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In recent months, you will have noticed that, at each Question Time, Ministers are asking Opposition spokesmen questions. Would it be in order for an Opposition spokesman to answer a question at the Dispatch Box? If an Opposition spokesman were to answer, would you then rule that he or she was out of order?

Madam Speaker: Many of these questions are rhetorical, but I remind the entire House that "Erskine May", which I am not quoting precisely, states that Question Time is there for Members to seek information from the Government and to press the Government for action. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are, as we are always reminded, a United Kingdom Parliament. As there has been no statement, will you tell us whether there is any way in which the House can express its concern about, and our sympathy for the victims of, the massacre of six innocent people in Northern Ireland? All they were doing was watching a football match on television and they were gunned down by murderous psychopaths.
Although I understand why we do not always have a statement after massacres, whether they are, as on Saturday, of Catholics or, as at other times, of Protestants, is not it necessary for us to show that we are not indifferent, that we deeply deplore what occurred and that we hope that those responsible for the massacre will be brought to justice?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. We seldom have Government statements following a terrorist attack, but there are opportunities during Northern Ireland questions to raise security matters of that nature.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reverting to the issue—

Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no reverting to any issue.

Mr. Hughes: It is a separate—

Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no reversion to the original issue. The hon. Gentleman will remember my words very clearly. I made it quite clear that it is for Members to seek information from the Executive and to press for action. I have said enough. That is the end of that point of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you agree that the simplest way of resolving the problem—I know that it places you in some difficulty—is for the Government to call a general election, then our lot can answer all the questions?

Madam Speaker: It does not actually place me in any difficulty at all. My campaigning days are over—so if a general election were called, I would have a holiday.

Opposition Day

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]

Parliamentary Procedure

Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
That this House notes the increasing public contempt for Parliament; believes that its organisation and procedures are anachronistic and irrelevant to the concerns of modern British society; notes with concern the Government's systematic erosion of Parliament's role in the consideration of legislation and its ability to hold the Executive to account for its actions; notes with particular concern the Government's use of civil servants for party political purposes; and calls for urgent and comprehensive reform of Parliament, including changes to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time.

Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tyler: Suppose for a moment, Madam Speaker, that you were sitting in that Chair, but Edward VI had not had a redundant chapel available in which the House of Commons could sit; instead, he had a redundant royal tennis court. Suppose that in Versailles in 1789, instead of a redundant tennis court, there had been a redundant chapel. If one believes architectural determinism, our continental neighbours would have the confrontational system of politics from which we have suffered in this country and you, Madam Speaker, would look at a consensus of political views in a semicircle.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is factually true.

Mr. Tyler: As my hon. Friend says, that is factually true.
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the two-party system is a product of that accident of history or whether, in some way, we have determined our own architecture and suffered accordingly. What is certainly true is that the consensus building of the semicircle has proved to be a great deal more sensitive to the pluralist politics of the 20th century—and possibly the 21st century —than the anachronisms of confrontation from which we still suffer in this place.
As hon. Members may have already detected, I do not have any great credentials for moving the motion. I studied political history in my long-distant academic past. I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure—I do not think that that qualifies me for anything much. But, perhaps more germanely, I am back here as the prize retread, having been first elected 20 years ago, and, therefore, perhaps in a unique position to compare what happened in the early 1970s with what is happening in the 1990s. In the 1970s, television had not arrived and nor had the Select Committees. I shall come back to both those reforms in due course.
My essential thesis is that those two changes, of themselves, cannot resist and reverse the tide of alienation —the alienation of Parliament from the people. The institution of Parliament has become dominated by party games, with the side effect of the stark dichotomy that few people outside this place recognise as relevant any more.
Parliament has fallen into public disrepute—Interruption—as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.


Skinner) no doubt may vouchsafe. This institution is seen as old-fashioned and irrelevant, and its Members lazy, badly behaved and self-indulgent—[Interruption.] Hon. Members behind me may deny that, but they are all too keen to quote the polls when the polls suit them. The polls show that 56 per cent. of the public are dissatisfied with the way in which hon. Members collectively do their job; only 32 per cent. are satisfied. Just 12 per cent. believe that we work hard—nearly four times as many think we do not. Four out of five British people believe that "feeding time at the zoo" is a fair description of the House of Commons.
The media stimulate that response because they emphasise the conflict in this place and ignore the consensus. The television cameras are on for Question Time; they are rarely on in Select Committees.

Mr. Simon Burns: rose—

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Tyler: I will not give way because I want to make some progress.
We are seen in this place as unnecessarily argumentative, and it would appear that one or two hon. Members now wish to prove that point. Sixty-four per cent. of the public think that politicians emphasise what we disagree about; only 37 per cent. think that we emphasise what we agree on. Parliament's bad reputation is a prime cause of the public's disenchantment with the whole process of politics.

Mr. Burns: rose—

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way.
The House of Commons is seen as being out of touch because, in many important respects, we are out of touch. Several hon. Members here will vouchsafe that many women in the community think that this Parliament is unrepresentative because only one tenth of our total membership are women while, of course, more than half the general population are.
In 1992, at the last general election, 24 per cent. of the voters did not support either of the major parties. Their views ended up being represented in the House by only 7 per cent. of the Members. Obviously, the argument for electoral reform and a fairer voting system is as strong as ever.
Despite being so unrepresentative, the two major parties continue to dominate the procedures and debates of the House. Almost 25 years ago, 90 per cent. of the population voted for the two parties. Today, that is not the case. In the 1992 election, the combined two-party vote dropped to 75 per cent. A week ago, when the Prime Minister claimed a return to the Buggin's turn two-party system, it dropped to just over two thirds—just less than 70 per cent.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is rightly trying to guide the House into behaving in a way that leads to more popular respect. Could he say whether the expression "Buggin's turn" was used by the Prime Minister or whether it is a phrase which he is ascribing to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Tyler: The phrase was used as a description of the way in which the Prime Minister referred to a return to the two-party system. I am glad to make that point clear.
No one can say that our debates in this place represent the full range of perspectives and opinions in the country. Only the most simplistic partisan could pretend that every issue could be viewed as Government versus Opposition or Conservative versus Labour. That is not the real world. None of our constituents and none of the public see the politics of this country in that way. Yet the House continues to operate as if that were true. Parliament's traditions, bizarre as they are, often cause consternation to our constituents and no doubt to those non-present people in the Gallery. "I spy strangers", top hats, convoluted language: is it any wonder that the public feel that we are performing some sort of cynical ritual?
The reality is that Parliament is not fulfilling its basic functions. Its first function is to call to account those who govern. That is true of the Opposition, whatever party is in opposition. That is our job. It is also the primary function of Government Back Benchers. Every so often, with a little freedom from the Whips, we see that happening—not, unfortunately, very frequently. The second function is the examination, criticism and approval of legislation. I shall deal with both those subjects briefly.
In calling the Executive to account, a fundamental principle of the British constitution is that the Government are accountable through Ministers to Parliament. Such Government accountability is essential if we are to have responsible Government. We have seen the creation and development of the departmental Select Committees. I welcome them and I am sure that all Members of Parliament recognise the effective work that they do. However, few would claim that they exercise such effective scrutiny of Ministers and their Departments that the full House need no longer fulfil that function. The Select Committees report critically, but how often do we get an opportunity to debate their conclusions in full and to follow through those conclusions to some reform?
I believe that the most important reason for the failure of the House of Commons to exercise its function is a lack of information. Government activities are not made available to the Opposition parties. Our winner-takes-all political system means that members of the Opposition parties are shut out of decisions and policy making. That is obviously exacerbated by the fact that the Conservative Government have been on the Treasury Bench for 15 years.
Let us consider some of the ways in which the parliamentary question is supposed to be able to elicit information and fails. In recent years, Ministers have developed a number of techniques for evading questions. They have become masters of the art. Holding answers delay a comprehensive written reply for several days. They say, "I will write to the hon. Member", but when the letter eventually arrives, it is not available to other Members.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way. There will be time for other Members to speak in due course.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way.
Thirdly, Ministers agree to put the information requested in the House of Commons Library, which is also an effective way to deny other Members the full explanation given in the answer to the question.
I shall give an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked the Minister of Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food to place in the Library the results of market research on her Department's advertising and publicity campaign. He asked her to do so because she had stated in an earlier reply that such research existed for a range of campaigns. What finally arrived, after much pressure, were the results of research on only a couple of the many campaigns. Clearly, the answer did not meet the question. Any hon. Members or members of the public who wanted to look up the answer could not do so.
Ministers also say that the information requested "is not available in the form requested," or "in a complete form". Another of my colleagues asked the Secretary of State for Health for background information and data on monitoring disciplinary procedures against doctors. The Minister of State responded that the data were not available centrally. Presumably inadvertently, however, he then enclosed the data in an incomplete form, with a little note on the top, "Do not send". I do not know whether the civil servant sent it on purpose or whether it was a mistake, but how revealing that is of Ministers' attitudes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he was in the House many years ago and can compare different Governments. Does he agree that, irrespective of the merits of our procedures—there is room for improvement—he is properly exposing to the British public, if only the media will so allow, not the failure of Parliament, but the failure of the Government to take Parliament and its procedures seriously?

Mr. Tyler: I shall come to that matter. The problem has certainly been exacerbated by Governments' attitudes. I recall that previous Government, and some of the gambits that are being used now were developed in those years. We cannot let any Front Bench off the hook.
All hon. Members are well aware of the buck-passing between Departments. The Government have raised evasion to an art form, which is perhaps best expressed in that phrase coined by a former hon. Member, Mr. Alan Clark, who doubtless had experience of it—"economical with the actualité". We in Cornwall might not recognise that last word, but I think that we understand the sense of the expression. That is a very good way to describe the evasions that are now coming to the surface through the Scott inquiry on arms sales to Iraq.

Mr. Toby Jessel: rose—

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way. I have a limited number of things to say and there will be plenty of time for other people to speak.
Whitehall's guidance on parliamentary questions says that answers to Members of Parliament should be
factual, straightforward and meticulously accurate.
The Scott inquiry was told by a former civil servant, however, that
Questions should be answered to give the maximum degree of satisfaction to the questioner. That doesn't mean they should necessarily be full.
The Pergau dam affair was another example of the way in which limited information can be given to the House. In 1991, the then Minister for Overseas Development said that there was no question of linking aid and arms deals. Subsequently, the Foreign Secretary said that the two for a time became entangled. Why is entangled not the same as linked?
The Minister responsible for open government—surely a misnomer—has claimed that Ministers have a right to lie to the House of Commons. He said that it is sometimes
necessary to say something that is untrue in the House of Commons".
He gave as his precedent Lord Callaghan's statement on the 1967 devaluation, for which he later apologised, but he did not withdraw the accusation. The Minister said that evasive answers to questions can be justified because
much of the Government activity is much more like playing poker than playing chess. You can't put all your cards up at one time.
Obviously there must be certain cases when Ministers cannot be completely candid to the House; perhaps matters relating to sterling and defence are examples. But the Minister, in his misdirected candour, failed to recognise the distinction between the national or public interest on the one hand and narrow party political interest on the other. He failed to see the distinction between lie avoidance and truth evasion, and he unwittingly identified for us all one of the Government's serious attacks on ministerial accountability to the House.
I believe that Whitehall's guidance on parliamentary questions must be reviewed and rewritten, and freedom of information legislation would be an important back-up to effective parliamentary accountability. Already this afternoon, there have been questions about the effectiveness of Prime Minister's Question Time. This is a part of the parliamentary day and it is apparently what most attracts television producers.
Looking back at Hansard for 1974—before television—I was interested to note that the then Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who sometimes we think still is, were able to exchange real information. The Leader of the Opposition asked only one question and did not make three miniature speeches, and there were not three miniature speeches in reply from the Prime Minister.
Does it really persuade any hon. Member—let alone the public—that that 15-minute partisan jousting match elicits information? Does any hon. Member really believe that the series of miniature speeches from the Leader of the Opposition, the patsy questions from Government Members and the point scoring of the Prime Minister in reply produce any form of accountability? The traditional view of Prime Minister's Question Time is that is the centrepiece of parliamentary democracy. Heaven help us if it is.
A number of suggestions have been put forward and I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that there is a need for reform; but we must see what is on the table. I have great sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that advance notice will just give more warning to the Prime Minister of how partisan he can be on the day.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend also accept that it would be helpful to democracy if Prime Ministers in this country did what Prime Ministers in other European countries do, which is to accept that good ideas do not always come from their own party and to say so publicly at Question Time and also to apologise when they and their Governments have made mistakes?

Mr. Tyler: Having now given proportional representation to hon. Members from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, I do not propose to take any more interventions.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that the Australian and New Zealand Parliaments—where I understand they have advance warning of questions—have not achieved any improvement in their Prime Minister's Question Time, but that in the Scandinavian Parliaments, to which I think my hon. Friend is particularly referring, there have been notable improvements.
I believe that unless we deal with the root disease, we will not achieve any improvements in the beer garden of Prime Minister's Question Time. But that is much more deep-seated than simply giving advance notice.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): The hon. Gentleman read that wrong—he means bear garden.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kindly intervention.
I shall now move on to the matter of extra-parliamentary accountability, and the many institutions that have been taken away from us and which are no longer accountable to us through Ministers. The growth of quangos under the Government has been dramatic.

Mr. Skinner: There are 7,000.

Mr. Tyler: There are 5,521 quangos, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, if one adds the next steps agencies the total rises to 7,000. In 1993, those quangos spent £50 billion of taxpayers' money without our having the opportunity to bring them to book here in the House. Parliament's opportunities to question them are very limited and our ability, even in Select Committees, to ensure that they are answerable is very constricted by the Osmotherly rules. The hiving off of those many unaccountable organisations is an affront to the effective parliamentary democracy of this country. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will cite just one example of such behaviour.
A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Further and Higher Education to intervene in a dispute over contracts of employment at the City of Bath college of further education. The Minister said that he could not do so. The Further Education Funding Council said that it had no power to intervene and the college governors said that they had delegated responsibility for such matters to the college principal. On the very same day that the Minister said that he could not intervene, however, he announced that he would hold back £50 million from further education colleges nationwide if they did not establish new, more flexible staff contracts. What bunkum it is when Ministers pretend that they cannot intervene.
In most cases, all too often Ministers dip in and out of controversies, simply to suit themselves. Awkward questions about the practical implications of their policy decisions are often sideswiped to agency heads. Witness what has happened to the Child Support Agency. It is surely objectionable that Secretaries of State have sub-contracted state responsibilities for prisons, higher education and social security benefits.
A veil has been placed between Parliament and those who are responsible for public services. I believe that the

next steps agencies should be put on a statutory basis so that we in Parliament know where we stand in relation to them and can bring them back under parliamentary control.
As for the examination, criticism and approval of legislation, Parliament is still passing far too much legislation and even more speedily than it did in 1974, when I was previously a Member of the House. The speed at which legislation is considered has been a source of criticism for many years, but the pace is accelerating. Although the House spends about one third of its total time considering Government legislation, there is little effective scrutiny of Bills. All too often, they are considered in a hasty, excessively partisan and sloppy manner. For a variety of reasons, including partisanship, lack of resources and insufficient technical expertise, Standing Committees do not always scrutinise Bills properly. In performing our legislative role, Parliament has not done itself justice in the eyes of the public.
I believe that it would be better if, pre-legislation, Select Committees were empowered to instigate consultation and examination of legislation rather than for that to be left, always, to White Papers and departmental trawls, which the Government have conspicuously failed to make effective.
I will cite, briefly, three examples of poor legislative work. On the Railways Bill, the Government produced a huge number of amendments on the day that they were due to be debated. Once those amendments had been pulled apart, they were withdrawn, but further amendments were tabled at the eleventh hour. Therefore, once that Bill had received Royal Assent, a supplementary Bill had to be introduced to tidy up the mistakes. The Criminal Justice Bill of 1993 required about 100 Government amendments and some parts of it were not even capable of being enacted.
The House spent hours debating the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, the Maastricht Bill, but that time could easily have been halved if there had been prior agreement on the length of debate on each group of amendments. Existing procedures allowed for lengthy filibustering, which was meaningless because it was virtually impossible to amend the Bill. The majority of amendments selected for debate were either wrecking or probing ones. During the Committee and Report stages, there were 24 closures, which meant that about six hours were wasted while hon. Members went through the Lobby. The delaying tactic of "motion to report progress" was used on three occasions.
The Committee stage of the Bill took 163 hours over 23 days, and more than 600 amendments were tabled. Yet the Foreign Secretary told the House that, in effect, the vital amendment No. 27 on the social chapter would have no legal impact whether it was passed or not. What an extraordinary comment on our proceedings.
Few outside observers believe that we are too scrupulous in our examination of legislation, yet the Government curtail Parliament's consideration of important Bills by using the guillotine procedure. In December, the Government took two Bills through all their stages in just two days. We need to change Parliament's procedures so that there is more time for the scrutiny of legislation. We need to give Select Committees a greater role in preparing legislation for the House.
A matter of further concern is the increased use of, and scope for, statutory instruments. In 1993, there were 3,276 statutory instruments—two thirds more than 10 years ago.


Four statutory instruments are now in force for each statute. What degree of scrutiny does the House exercise when fewer than a quarter of Prayers are debated and about a third of statutory instruments are not subject to parliamentary procedures? Statutory instruments are growing like Topsy. Even when they are debated, they are not fully scrutinised in Committee. It should be possible to move amendments within the rules of debate. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn attention to the way in which those devices are used increasingly for political ends rather than for legislative means. That must be reversed.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, on which other hon. Members may wish to speak, takes the matter a stage further with the so-called Henry VIII clauses. The 1932 report of the Donoughmore committee said that those would be used only in exceptional circumstances. They will now be used increasingly.
The Select Committee on Procedure was permitted to examine the best way to give some semblance of effective scrutiny to "fast track" procedure, but it was not allowed to consider whether there should be one at all. Of course, its limited recommendations fell foul of the Government Whips.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will no doubt speak about his Committee's recommendations and I shall not deal with those in detail at this stage. But is it not remarkable, if not deplorable, that the usual channels are currently carving up what was intended to be a report for the full House and Back-Bench Members in particular?
The domination of the party in British politics has been effectively analysed by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) in both his academic and practitioner roles. I hope, Madam Speaker, that he will catch your eye, because he can obviously develop his argument better than I.

Mr. Burns: He is not here.

Mr. Tyler: I am sure that his absence from this important debate will be brief. He sums up his case as follows:
My argument, then, is that party substitutes for constitution in Britain (with party groups substituting for effective scrutiny) and that provides for a winner-takes-all kind of politics.
There is a deep-seated malaise in our Parliament and politics. The medieval jousting in this Chamber is as irrelevant to the real concerns of the British people as the mumbo-jumbo of our neo-Gothic rituals. Only the built-in self-interest of the cosy cartel, which Front-Bench Members are only too happy to maintain, as it monopolises power between two rival and alternating establishments, keeps it that way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tyler: In 1780, the House passed a motion that the power of the Crown—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is not prepared to give way, so hon. Members should not press him to do so.

Mr. Tyler: You will be glad to hear, Madam Speaker, that I am reaching my conclusion.
In 1780, the House passed a motion that

The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
If we mean business about parliamentary reform, we cannot simply deal with the symptoms—rowdy irrelevance at Question Time or impotent inquiries by Select Committees, for example. We must identify the root causes —the disease itself. We could do worse than start by agreeing that the power of the party has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government for its initiative in setting up the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee); supports the objectives of making agreed improvements in the House's hours of sittings and working methods; and welcomes the Prime Minister's recent statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to progress on parliamentary reform.
I was surprised when the Liberal Democrats initially tabled this subject for discussion last Thursday because the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was well aware that discussions were proceeding—I hope also to have discussions with him—about reforming the procedures of the House. Therefore, it is surprising that this subject should be chosen for debate today.
I was further puzzled when I discovered that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), rather than the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, was to lead the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. My high regard for the judgment of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was momentarily increased still further in the early part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, when I noticed that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had left the Chamber, which seemed to me the most appropriate comment, although I realise that he came back. None of my puzzlement has been diminished by listening to the speech—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think I ought to correct the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) came to the Chair to have a word with me at that time.

Mr. Newton: In that case, I must straightforwardly apologise for misrepresenting the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I realised that he had left his place. I obviously made a mistake in assuming that he had left the Chamber, but, having listened to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I think that he would have been better off out of the Chamber had he done so.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for showing me the courtesy that, unfortunately, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who moved the motion, did not wish to show to others. Is not it an odd state of affairs when the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion is a Member who was in the House for about six months and then out for 18 years? If it is such a terrible place, why did he spend so many years trying to get back here?
Although I share many of the criticisms that the hon. Member for North Cornwall made of Government action —obviously I would do that—was not the essence of much of what he said that we should take the politics out of


politics? This is a place for political warfare. If we did not have political warfare in a Parliament such as ours, which we should cherish, it would be out on the streets. There is nothing wrong with clashes. Much of what we heard—I think that the Leader of the House will agree—was pious nonsense.

Mr. Newton: I usually try to be emollient, but for once I find myself greatly in agreement with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He asked a pertinent question of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to which, no doubt, we shall in due course receive an answer—why he was so keen to get back in here if he thinks so little of the place. On the other hand, our track record in obtaining from the Liberal Democrats answers to any question is not good that may remain another one that hangs in the air.
It was, frankly—as I think will have been widely felt on both sides of the House—a pretty extraordinary performance. The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a speech in which, although I do not remember his exact words, he deplored the absence of proper debate in the House and then persistently refused intervention after intervention—interventions being one of the ways in which we conduct debate in the House, sometimes quite productively. He spoke of people evading issues; I have never heard a speech that evaded as many issues as his. There was only one thing in his remarks with which I totally agreed and I took a note of the sentence because it harnessed so much agreement in my mind. He said:
I have only a limited number of things to say".
He could certainly say that again. He said them at some length and, in my judgment at least, his speech was little more than a series of cheap debating points.
In the remaining few minutes of a speech that started by expressing worry about Parliament's bad reputation, the hon. Member for North Cornwall did nothing to enhance the reputation of Parliament.

Mr. Burns: While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of enhancing the reputation of Parliament, did he notice that, during the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in which he criticised hon. Members of, I suspect, all parties in the Chamber for being egged on by the media, a phenomenon occurred that occurs only when Liberal Democrats make speeches? The Liberal Democrats all bunched behind one other on Benches belonging to the Labour party so as to achieve the "doughnut" effect for television. In other debates, when they are not taking part, they resume their normal Bench. They do that simply to get themselves on television and to give an impression that they are doing more work than they usually do.

Mr. Newton: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that path, but no doubt his observations will have been noted in these and other quarters.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) condemned what he alleged to be typical answers from Ministers—answers such as "I will write to the hon. Gentleman"? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is the only Liberal Member who answers questions, and he gave precisely that answer to a question from me today.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) speaks for the House of Commons Commission. As I am a member of the Commission, I hesitate to attack him in that role. I see that he has had the grace to smile, in his usual engaging way, at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).
Let me return to what I consider to be the main issues in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who will no doubt wish to contribute to the debate. In my present capacity as Leader of the House, I am more than happy to engage in debates on procedure whenever the House wishes. Nevertheless—as I suggested in commenting on the existence of today's debate—I hope that I shall not be thought churlish if I express some surprise at its timing. As the House well knows, I am in the middle of discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and others, seeking to make progress on procedural reform.
Those talks are taking place in an extremely constructive way, but—as with any other negotiation or series of talks—it would be neither practicable nor desirable to attempt to give a blow-by-blow account in the middle of them. I hope that the House will understand that at this stage I can only set out our principal objectives, and state—I mean this quite straightforwardly—that I shall be happy to listen to any further thoughts that are expressed today. I very much hope that that will give further impetus to the progress that hon. Members on both sides of the House want.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Leader of the House used the term "procedural change". Is he in a position to say when we can expect changes to the Standing Orders governing Scottish business? I am given to understand that discussions have taken place over many months, but have been halted.

Mr. Newton: I shall mention that later, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we hope that the new arrangements will be in place in time for the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that he would accept whatever views were offered for consideration. May I bring up a very important aspect of what goes on in the House, which was not mentioned in that interesting schoolboy essay by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and has not so far been mentioned in the disconnected comments of the Leader of the House?
One of the most malign influences on how the public see the House of Commons has resulted from the introduction of those damned objects, the television cameras. It has led to the bad conduct of hon. Members —worse conduct than normal—and the bad conduct of business in the House. The cameras are frequently abused by the Government Front Bench, and some of the slimier Members, to get points of view across to the public which are misleading and are made only because the cameras are on them.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has made his views known over a long period. I have to say that I do not agree with him about the adverse effect on the procedures of the House—or, indeed, about the view that the public take of the introduction of television cameras. My personal view


—it can be no more than a personal view—is that it has significantly enhanced interest in what goes in this place, and therefore enhanced the centrality of Parliament to the British political process. That effect should be welcomed. I do not say that there have been no undesirable side-effects, but overall I think that the move has been beneficial.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that—contrary to what has just been said by my dear, beloved hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—it is not true that behaviour in this place has deteriorated since the advent of television cameras? In fact it has improved, as has the dress of many hon. Members. If the cameras were withdrawn, would there not be a public outcry?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's latter point is true. As it happens, I also agreed with his first point; it is simply that I did not wish to pick a dispute with the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on each and every one of his points. However, I made it quite clear that I did not agree with him.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: I will, but from the large number of hon. Members present I judge that many would like to take part in the debate. I have said that, in present circumstances, I am not in a position to make a major, substantive statement about any changes and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. While I am ready, as ever, to give way to interventions, it will significantly prolong my speech if I continue to do so.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend referred to the public's interest in this place. They must find many of our proceedings somewhat arcane. Were we to timetable a greater proportion of our business, not only would they have a greater understand of what is happening but they would have greater opportunity to come to hear what we say, both in the Chamber and in Committee.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend made that same point crisply and effectively during questions to the Lord President of the Council a little earlier today. I understand that that aim—expressed, in one way, in the Jopling report —would be supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Before I make what I intend to be fairly brief comments, I want to inform the House of the regret expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that, because of the short notice of the debate and his long-standing commitment in an equally important parliamentary capacity, he cannot be present today. He wanted me to pass on his regrets, which he expressed both to me and to the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
The starting point of our discussion is the report known in the shorthand of the trade as the Jopling report—the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who may be seeking to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. As on earlier occasions, I pay tribute not only to him but to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk,

South (Mr. MacGregor), now the Secretary of State for Transport. His appreciation of the need for reform of our pattern of sittings led to the setting up of the Committee.
When the House last debated the matter, which was some time ago, I made it clear that the Government would welcome the more civilised, more certain hours of sitting that the Committee recommended, provided that that could be done in a way that ensured that the elected Government of the day could get their legislative programme and other essential business through in a reasonable fashion. That remains our position. Since then, my goal has been a package of measures that strikes a fair balance between the interests of Government, the interests of the Opposition and, of course, the interests of the House as a whole.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Government reach a conclusion on these matters—especially on the handling of legislation—will the right hon. Gentleman deal specifically with the arguments deployed by the all-party Hansard Society committee on the legislative process, chaired by Lord Rippon, which demonstrated authoritatively how unsatisfactory our processes are for the public in producing good quality legislation? That is due not in small measure to the amount of time wasting in dealing with legislation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also deal specifically with the question raised by Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, in his Denning lecture, about the inadequate amount of time being given by Parliament and the Government to the recommendations of the Law Commission, fewer and fewer of which are being acted upon by the House? Instead, they are lying collecting dust on the shelves, not because they are not worthy, but because the Government cannot find the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a very long intervention.

Mr. Newton: I have two brief observations to make on that intervention. First, there is quite an amount in the report of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government—although I accept that it goes wider—which interrelates with the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale put forward in his report on the way in which the House approaches legislation and the discussion of legislation. Secondly, for what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland shorthanded as Law Commission Bills or law reform Bills, procedures already exist in both Houses of Parliament. In this House, there is the provision, for example, for some legislation to go to Second Reading Committees, which are designed to facilitate the passage of legislation when it is non-controversial. I better openly say that it was more difficult to operate those procedures during the period when the usual channels were not operating. I am hopeful that, now we are back to a more normal pattern of relationships between the two Front Benches, some of those difficulties may ease.
The overall objective that we all have was well put by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a press conference that he held a week ago today, when he said:
I hope we can find ways of enabling the Commons to do its business in more sensible ways, in more sensible hours without either unacceptably reducing the government's capacity to carry its programme, or reducing the Opposition's flexibility in deploying and pressing its case against government legislation. I


believe that this effort has very strong support on both sides of the House and very strong support outside the House from millions of people who follow our proceedings. The government is keen to make progress on this front, if the Opposition are equally keen",
I see no reason to doubt that they are. He continued:
I hope we should be able to map the way forward before the summer recess.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I shall, but I must cease to give way quite so frequently if other hon. Members are to have a chance to speak.

Mr. Flynn: In support of that statement by the Prime Minister, I gave him 24 hours notice last week of a question that I asked in an entirely non-combative way. The answer that I received was described in The Times editorial as being a typical civil service briefing with a party-political jibe in the tail. If the Prime Minister is failing to rise to his own challenge, why should the House take him seriously?

Mr. Newton: Frankly, that is a cheap debating point rivalling the comments that we heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Of course I was aware of, and had seen, the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister setting out his question. I heard the reply. I thought that it was a properly considered reply and that my right hon. Friend responded in the way in which the hon. Gentleman had made possible and I cleave to that view.
In the last debate on the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, he made a comment with which I very much agree. He said:
when considering altering parliamentary procedure, it is important to seek to do it on the basis of consensus."—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 74.]
That is very much the spirit in which I am conducting my current discussions and in which they are being conducted in other quarters as well. Since the usual channels have resumed, we have made good progress towards that objective and I hope that I shall also be able to have constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. Our aim, as I have said, is to be able to map the way forward before the summer recess and I shall give further indications on what we may be able to achieve as soon as I am able.
However, I should like to underline something that I said either in response to an intervention or in response to one of the questions at Lord President's questions a few moments ago. I hope that the House will not underestimate the extent to which considerable progress has been made towards some of the objectives in the Jopling report in the management of this Session's business. Excluding Consolidated Fund debates, which are, of course, effectively private Members' time, we have sat after midnight on only 17 occasions out of 116. The longest sitting lasted until 3.22 am and only one other sitting went beyond 3 am. I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will agree, given his previous experience in this place, that the almost routine all-night marathons of the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s have effectively

become things of the past. We sit to those hours, or all night, far less frequently than was the case when I became a Member 20 years ago.
We have tried to arrange less contentious business—this is much in line with one of the Jopling recommendations—for Thursday evenings to facilitate the passage back to their constituencies of Members from further afield who wish to be in their constituencies on Friday.
I have sought to give Members as much notice as possible of the dates of recesses.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about the summer recess?

Several hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: I understand the general interest in the summer recess. I am not in a position to be as forthcoming as I should like about that. I am conscious that on a couple of occasions I have given so much advance notice of the dates of other recesses that they have been overlooked and complaints have been made, when in fact the dates have been announced long since. On those occasions, some hon. Members were still unaware of the dates. We have, however, made some progress.
In short, even within the present procedural rules, an approach to business management has been taken that has represented a deliberate wish to be responsive to the wishes of the House. That approach has already enabled us to make useful progress towards meeting those wishes. In doing so—I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will agree with me—we have created a useful foundation on which we may be able to make further progress, which is precisely what we are seeking to do.
Given the time that has been taken by interventions, I shall not spend a great deal of time commenting on other recent reforms. I hope, however, that the House will not underestimate them. I have in mind the development of the European Standing Committees, which has helped to relieve the pressure of business on the Floor of the House. The volume of private business has been substantially reduced by the passage of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
In this Parliament, the system of departmental Select Committees—it has been referred to already, but the extent to which Committees have improved the capacity of the House to hold the Executive to account has perhaps not been acknowledged—has been consolidated and extended. It is with some considerable pleasure that I find myself the Leader of the House who has extended the Select Committee system to Northern Ireland affairs and has achieved the establishment, after a long period of controversy, of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I pay tribute to the efforts that the Leader of the House has made. Will he be prepared to allow both the European Standing Committees and the Select Committees to have greater rights so that they can move amendments to the legislation that they are monitoring and can demand that it be fully debated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Newton: It is always open to Committees to make proposals about debates on the Floor of the House. We always consider such proposals with great care.
I promised the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that I would respond to his


intervention and I shall do so before I resume my place. There are one or two further procedural developments that I hope to bring before the House in the near future.
In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland published the Government's proposals for improvements in the way in which we handle Scottish business. The aim, as I think I explained earlier—ray right hon. Friend and I hope to bring forward the proposals shortly—is to give Scottish Members additional opportunities to raise Scottish concerns without in any way diminishing their rights to debate Scottish issues on the Floor of the House.
Under the proposals, the Scottish Grand Committee will be able to deal with a wide range of business, including the Second Reading of Bills, questions to Scottish Office Ministers, a new procedure for short debates, ministerial statements and general debates on topics chosen by the Government, the Official Opposition or by the minority parties. We envisage that the Scottish Grand Committee will hold some of its meetings in Scotland, not only in Edinburgh but in other parts of that country, provided that the necessary facilities are available. As I have said, it is our intention that those reforms should take effect at the beginning of the next Session.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has any more thought been given to the critical question whether the head of the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate, can be subjected to direct questioning by Members of this House? For that matter, has any more thought been given to whether the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who plays a very active, critical and controversial part in the affairs of Scotland, could also be subject to questioning by Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. Newton: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, he raised those matters in a point of order towards the end of last week. I hope that he will not mind my saying that he also spoke to me informally afterwards about his concerns, and I undertook to look further into the points that he had raised. I will do that, but I hope that he will understand that I cannot respond further across the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
There is really only one other point to which I want to refer, which may introduce slightly more controversy and on which some hon. Members may wish to comment. With regard to procedural reform or change, we have proposals for a new procedure for dealing with deregulation orders once the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has been enacted.
The House has already debated the Procedure Committee's valuable report on that subject. I am riot quite sure whether I understood the references of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to that point, because the Government have accepted virtually all the Procedure Committee's recommendations in that area, as the Chairman of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton very fairly acknowledged.
The procedure will involve—this point relates to a number of strands in the debate—widespread public consultation before a proposal is brought forward and scrutiny by an all-party Select Committee with powers to take evidence from witnesses and to report its conclusions to the House. That will ensure that some useful but non-contentious deregulation measures can be enacted with full public and parliamentary scrutiny, but without

adding still further to the pressure on the Floor of the House which is one of the things that so many hon. Members wish to see reduced.
I realise that, with respect to the main issue on people's minds, I have been able to do little more this afternoon than to say that I continue to listen against a background of continuing discussion. However, I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the comments that others will make. I hope that this debate will give a further impetus to the reform which I am sure is widely supported on both sides of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that there is a great deal of interest in the debate, but only about two hours before the winding-up speeches must start. I appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I will certainly try to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested a reform which does not seem to have occurred to the Jopling Committee. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we could enhance our public reputation by redesigning the building. He suggested that we should sit around in a semicircle, rather than in this adversarial setting, perhaps on bean bags—[Interruption.] That would enable me to sit beside the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and I would like that very much. However, it would make no difference to the political differences between us.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall went on to describe his parliamentary colleagues as lazy, badly behaved and self-indulgent. I do not have the hon. Gentleman's experience of the Liberal Democratic parliamentary group, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he may be on to something.

Mr. Tyler: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to put on record the fact that I was talking about the view of the public as displayed by a MORI public opinion poll. It was not my view.

Mr. Brown: I am perfectly willing to accept from the hon. Gentleman that that is the public's view of the Liberal Democratic parliamentary group and it is fair to say that the recent election results rather bear that out.
Not unusually for the Liberal Democrats, the motion confuses two different issues right at the beginning and then carries on in a similar muddled vein. It is true that the Government are unpopular. However, the Liberal Democratic motion confuses that with public contempt for the institution of Parliament. Dissatisfaction with the Executive and the Executive's decisions is not the same as disenchantment with parliamentary democracy. There is no widespread demand in this country for another form of government—not communism, not government by workers' soviet, not military rule, not fascist dictatorship, not even a change in the election system to give the Liberal Democrats a permanent veto over the decisions of Conservative or Labour Governments.
The motion goes on to criticise the organisation and procedures of the House. Of course, there is a very strong case for reform, although it is not made out in the motion, which does not contain a single constructive suggestion. In


fact, the Jopling report contains a number of constructive suggestions and discussions are taking place in the normal way with a view to making progress on the Jopling recommendations and other ideas that sit logically alongside them. I am not in a position today to state the view of the parliamentary Labour party; nor is it right that I should.

Mr. Tony Banks: I take my hon. Friend back slightly to the layout of the Chamber. Is it not a fact that if 650 people were chosen at random—indeed, looking around the Chamber, perhaps they were—and put in this place, because of the confrontational nature of the layout, they would behave in precisely the same way as hon. Members behave during Prime Minister's Question Time? Would not it be appropriate to look at the layout of the Chamber and do something about the appalling lack of facilities for Members? Why cannot we have individual desks so that we could speak from them, rather than stand in this rudimentary, confrontational Chamber which exacerbates feelings in this place?

Mr. Brown: I have not given great thought to the positioning of furniture in the building. I am a bit of a traditionalist; I rather like the Chamber as it is. Just about the only chance of securing a parliamentary majority for the Liberal Democrats would be if hon. Members were chosen entirely at random. I do not see any other prospect of their gaining very much success.
Before making further progress, it is absolutely right to thank the Lord President of the Council for the efficient and constructive way in which he is undertaking the task of reform. In particular, I thank him for his courtesy in the discussions on the detail of the proposals. I hope that we will have something of substance to put in front of the House soon and then we will be in a position to hear the views of the House. Not all those matters are adversarial between the parties; indeed, some are neutral. It is a matter of preference for the House rather than party political advantage.
It is perfectly reasonable, for example, for Members of Parliament to want some certainty in allocating time for constituency business and other work that cannot be done in the House itself. It is also perfectly reasonable that Members of Parliament should like as much notice of business as can reasonably be provided. It also seems to me to be perfectly possible to bring about evolutionary change in the way in which we carry out our business in the House. Such change should be brought about by consensus.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is not my hon. Friend falling into the chasm of accepting the basic premise which operates in this place: that the Executive controls the timetable of Parliament? I think that that is wrong. The debate is about fundamental reform whereby control of the business of this place is repatriated to hon. Members rather than left with the Executive. It should be left to a Select Committee of distinguished parliamentarians who are not members of the Government. That is the basis of reform and many good things could flow from it.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to become involved in the details of the discussion, because they are not complete and there are matters still to be resolved between us before we

put proposals to other colleagues. However, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of my falling into a parliamentary chasm, because I always send somebody from the Whips Office to walk in front of me.
Change should be by consensus. It should not, as the Leader of the House has confirmed, disturb the existing balance between the rights of the Executive and the rights of the House—between Government and Opposition. The Liberal Democrat demand for immediate action goes very close to being a demand for the Executive to impose their version of change and reform on the House, whether hon. Members like it or not. That would be foolish. We should proceed by consensus and not by encouraging the Executive to impose their view on us.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I am pleased to see taking part in the debate.

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand that we need to proceed by consensus and that no one can impose solutions over people's heads, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there will come a time when unanimity will not be possible, particularly among Labour Back Benchers, and that he will then have to use his best offices to persuade them of the need to change, even it means that some of them will be disappointed?

Mr. Brown: I made it overwhelmingly clear that I support the case for reform and for consulting other people, among whom I would include the hon. Gentleman. We must proceed by consensus among the different political parties. People will always disagree on some points, but we shall have to find a way of resolving them. That should not strike any politician as being unusual or impossible to achieve. The Government and the parliamentary Labour party want to proceed in a way that is reasonable and sensible, probably not least because both see the realistic prospect of our roles being reversed, which is more than one can say about the Liberal Democrats.
I should like to put in a word for the idea of non-adversarial examination of technical legislation: the annual Finance Bill, omnibus law reform, home affairs measures—perhaps building on the work of the Law Commission—and detailed Department of the Environment legislation. The idea, which has been canvassed before, is that technical parts of, for example, the Finance Bill could be separated from the rest of the Bill. Detailed measures could be dealt with under a separate Taxes Management Bill, which could be scrutinised in the same way as we scrutinise European legislation. It would require a larger gap between Second Reading and Committee stage, and as a quid pro quo the Bill would have to be passed on a tighter and, let me say it now, agreed timetable.
I accept that that is not the Government's view. Such a policy, however, would improve parliamentary scrutiny, enable Members of Parliament other than Ministers to hear expert opinion and enhance our standing with specialists who would like to explain their position to us.
I am not suggesting such a procedure for matters that are politically contentious between the two parties. The proposal would deal with technical matters, on which any reasonable person would like to hear the views of specialists before coming to a final conclusion.
There are other obvious areas for reform. More effective use could be made of scrutiny by Committee. If we are seeking to gain constituency time, the proposal to do the House's Friday work on Wednesday mornings merits consideration. The proposal has no balance of advantage between Government and Opposition, although other people will no doubt disagree. Obviously, it is essential that we piotect the credibility and reputation of Parliament and that we focus our energies on real issues rather than waste time for its own sake in a boring and anarchic way. It is surprising that some hon. Members, who claim to be the most radical, are among those most opposed to change.
The Liberal Democrat motion rightly refers to the Government's
systematic erosion of Parliament's role in the consideration of legislation".
The most blatant example of that was the way in which the increase in employees' national insurance contributions and the changes to the statutory sick pay regime were bludgeoned through the House before Christmas. As a result of that heavy-handed action, the Labour party broke off normal relations with the Government. By contrast, the Liberal Democrats condemned the Government's actions yet carried on conducting business in the normal way. They complain about Government action, but offer no effective opposition.
Similarly, the Government guillotined the Finance Bill very tightly, allowing for a range of abuses, including slipping in amendments at the last minute under the name of Tory Back Benchers. They manipulated the guillotine to avoid Ministers having to explain tricky matters to the Committee. Tory Members filibustered debates prior to those that would be awkward to the Executive, thereby ensuring that controversial issues were not discussed in Committee, particularly the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, which was almost not discussed at all.
At the end of that farce, the Liberal Democrat spokesman felt able to tell the House that he broadly approved of the way in which the Committee had proceeded to the guillotine. The views of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are at variance with the contents of the motion.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful way in which the Government used their majority to timetable those measures offers a salutary warning to those who believe that timetabling should be more frequently and routinely used in the House?

Mr. Brown: The lessons to be learnt from the way in which the Finance Bill was treated in Committee this year were not lost on me, of all people in this place, and are conditioning the current discussions. My hon. Friend's warning is well taken. It is not possible for the Opposition somehow to sacrifice their rights and hand over the management of business to the Executive.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: Of course I will: how could I possibly resist?

Mr. Beith: Has the hon. Gentleman talked to any of the many groups that watched the passage of the Finance Bill with particular interest because they are affected by it and have to implement it? Is he aware of the extent to which they found that the timetable made it much more feasible

for them to deal with hon. Members because they knew when amendments were to be debated? Will he recognise that my comment that the timetable for the Bill had, in general, worked, which I stand by, was qualified only by my assertion that the ability of other groups to vary the operation of the timetable would have improved it further still—a factor which is inherent in the Jopling proposals?

Mr. Brown: I have in front of me what the right hon. Gentleman said in the debate on 20 April 1994. He did not make that latter point, although I appreciate that it is his view. He is a veteran of many Finance Bills. He is right to say that there should be certainty about the timetable so that the outside world can make specialist representations. I know that he shares my view that the best way to deal with the matter is to have a separate Taxes Management Bill dealing with the details of long, omnibus Bills point by point and measure by measure so that experts from outside can talk to us and explain their views.
That does not mean that I yield one inch on the way in which Parliament handles controversial matters such as tax increases or decreases—tax decreases before elections and spectacular increases after elections. Those matters are politically contentious and it is no use suggesting that they can be dealt with by consensus, because they cannot. People have strong views about such matters. It would better serve democracy if we first took expert testimony on finance, home affairs and Department of the Environment measures and proceeded in a less adversarial way.
The Liberals' motion makes some complaints about civil service involvement in political activity. I agree with the points that it makes. It is important that the public service remains independent and uncorrupted. Britain had a strong tradition of independent public service, which prolonged government by a single party has eroded. A letter from Mr. Bob Welsh to the social services inspectorate in the Department of Health states:
A continuing flow of positive messages about community care would pay political dividends at both local and national levels".
That clearly oversteps the mark for a public servant. Nor do I think that it is proper to use parliamentary draftsmen to draw up copious amendments for Government Back Benchers to table to private Member's legislation, which the Government then pretend they do not oppose in principle.
There is a case for reform, including reconsidering the procedure for Prime Minister's Question Time. The inescapable fact, however, is that the job of being a Member of Parliament will always be demanding and is likely to become more, rather than less, so. No reform of the House will ever get around that fact.
We would also betray our responsibilities to the British people if we ever let Parliament become a part-time institution, relieving the Executive of the burden of scrutiny. I must tell the Liberal Democrats that no amount of neogothic self-righteous whingeing will ever change either of those facts.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he had taken note of a certain phrase in the opening speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches, in which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that he had "relatively few things to say". I also wrote that comment


down, and it occurred to me at the time that the hon. Gentleman might well have said that he had relatively few things in his head.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that he does not like the cut and thrust of our proceedings in this House, which has gone on for centuries, and wants to turn this place into a hemicycle to try to dampen everything down. If he sat and watched the proceedings of the United States Congress, a forum which is based very much on that approach, he would find that Members of Congress largely complain about the boring blandness of the Chamber and about the fact that all the real work goes on in Committee. I cannot think of a worse fate for this House than to be consigned to that sort of blandness.
We repeatedly hear from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall of their dislike for political cut and thrust. We should never forget that there are still millions of people around the world who would give their back teeth for the cut and thrust of our debates and for the democracy that we enjoy. I am sorry to say this, but it seems that many hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches—and there are some here today who are distinguished exclusions from what I am about to say—seem to prefer the political actions of a dark night with a stiletto to the cut and thrust that is so much a part of our proceedings.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we have an adversarial Chamber, anyone who is elected to the House must decide which side they are on, and that such a decision does not come easily to many Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend could not have put it better.
I welcome this debate and the Liberal Democrat motion for one reason: it allows us again to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, of which I had the honour to be Chairman. We have not debated the report for two years. I shall come back to that in a moment; first, however, I simply want to say a little more about the motion that we are debating.
When I first read the motion, it seemed to be a rushed job. It was not well drafted and little thought had gone into it. That became clear in my mind when I received a note from my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred. It was a note that my right hon. Friend had written to the hon. Member for North Cornwall in which he says —I have his permission to quote it�ž
I am sorry that when you had a word with me on Wednesday evening you did not mention the intention of your party to be arranging the debate.
I will not accuse the hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe that—

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Jopling: I shall give way in a moment. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman did that out of discourtesy or deviousness—I grant him that. All I can say is that that demonstrates that his is a rushed, botched-up motion which should be thrown out on its ear.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he will be aware that the date for this debate was offered to the Liberal Democrats only on Wednesday. It was therefore impossible for my hon. Friends and me to indicate to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for whom I have a high regard, the intention to debate this issue.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman forgets that for many years I was part of the usual channels. Of course, the Liberal Democrats have always known broadly when they would get debates.

Mr. Tyler: That is not true.

Mr. Jopling: Not exactly when, but within a few weeks.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to us.

Mr. Jopling: I will not repeat the points made by my hon. Friends.
In my experience, the Liberal Democrats always know within a few weeks that they are to be offered a half-day debate, and they always have a motion thought out and ready. Perhaps they do not think ahead as they used to.
One part of the motion that demonstrates that it is a botched-up job is the reference to Prime Minister's Question Time. If ever there was a time not to table a motion criticising the format, this is it. Anyone can criticise the format of Prime Minister's Question Time; for many years, it has occupied better minds than those of hon. Members here today and no one has ever been able to come up with a better way of doing things. Let us hope that we can find one. It does not take a genius to criticise the present arrangement for Prime Minister's Question Time. But, given that things are at last—and helpfully, I hope—moving, this seems to me to be the most stupid time at which to criticise the format.

Mr. Dalyell: There was a very different time in the history of Prime Minister's Questions—the time when the Prime Minister of the day would transfer any matter that was not directly relevant to the job of Prime Minister. The absolutely horrendous open question puts a completely different complexion on Prime Minister's Question Time. The two are as different as chalk and cheese.

Mr. Jopling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House marginally longer than I have, will agree that, if we can find a better way of running Prime Minister's Question Time, we should do it. I welcome the initiative of the Procedure Committee, which has gone some way towards that.

Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: No, I shall proceed.
Another thing that surprised me about the motion was its attack on Parliament's
ability to hold the Executive to account".
As the motion says that, some credit should be given to the departmental Select Committees which were set up in 1980. As the House may remember—although my old friend Norman St. John-Stevas claims that he set them up —I undertook all the negotiations for setting up the Select Committees with the then Opposition Chief Whip.
I believe that the Select Committees have dramatically changed the ability of the House to question the Executive. As the House knows, I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee so I have some practical experience of this. I was also a member of two Select Committees—the Agriculture Committee and the Science and Technology Committee—during the famous Crossman experiment. I was sorry that they did not survive, but I am, and continue to be, a strong advocate of the Select Committee system.
I also have the advantage of having had to sit on the sharp end of the Select Committees; as a departmental Minister, I was frequently cross-examined very hard by them. They have made a dramatic change to the preparation that Ministers undertake before they face the House. Any Minister who has had to sit in front of a Select Committee and be cross-examined will know that it is something that no previous Ministers before the early 1980s ever had to do.

Mr. Winnick: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has given way on several occasions. Does he agree that, although the departmental Select Committees undoubtedly do excellent work, the Chamber must be the daily focus when we are sitting of the differences between the political parties, and that Prime Minister's Question Time, whatever its format, is bound to be the subject of intense controversy and the time at which the most controversial subjects are raised? There is no reason why we should apologise for the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House raise matters that we believe are of the greatest importance, or for the fact that there is some noise. Would not it also be useful if the serious newspapers reported parliamentary proceedings, not simply Prime Minister's Question Time?

Mr. Jopling: I am delighted for the first time in my life publicly to support everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He and I have been in the House many years. I agree with what he said—indeed, I referred to that point a little earlier when I said that I hoped that we would not move to the bland American experience, which does not match the cut and thrust of our parliamentary proceedings.
It occurred to me that in his arguments about the problems of Parliament in getting facts and information, the hon. Member for North Cornwall ought logically to have advocated a freedom of information Bill. I did not hear him expound that argument, although it seemed to be at the centre of what he was trying to say. He referred to the Pergau affair. I do not want to say too much about it as a member of the Select Committee which is currently examining the matter and preparing a report. The hon. Gentleman referred to a temporary entanglement. I make the point to him that the moment that Ministers discovered that there was a temporary entanglement, strenuous and in some ways rather harsh steps were taken to get rid of it, which reflected nothing but credit on the Government. It was clear that an entanglement had been arrived at which ought not to have happened.

Sir Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me with his references to freedom of information and the work of the Committee to which he belongs. Only today, I listened to a discussion on the radio about a prison which is due to open in my constituency. All kinds of revelations are common knowledge in the United States and these reports have been published about the prison, but the Home Office refuses to

divulge in this country any of the information that is available to the public in the United States. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at that example.

Mr. Jopling: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's local newspapers will have heard what he has said. I cannot comment on it. I have no doubt that his local radio and television stations will at this moment be agog and will make sure that his intervention is recorded in the 6 o'clock news.
Let me make just a few comments about the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. First, history: a unanimous report was published by a Committee representing the three principal parties. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was a most distinguished member of that Committee. There was a debate in the House before the last election in which broad support was expressed for the unanimous recommendation.
Shortly after the election, an early-day motion was signed by 215 Members. I think that I speak reasonably accurately when I say that 120 of them or thereabouts were Opposition Members. We had another debate in July 1992. The current Leader of the House accepted about 85 per cent. of what the Committee had recommended. That was the high water point. Since then, the report has made little progress. I think that everyone in the House knows that the block to its progress comes from a small number of Members. I think that the Opposition Whips Office is one of those areas in which there is a small redoubt of opposition to the report. I shall not say any more about that because I really do not want to muddy the waters at this stage.
Since our debate in the summer of 1992, the Government could easily have ramrodded the findings of the report through the House. I know from being around the House during the past two years that there is broad support for the recommendations right across the House. There is no week in the House when I do not have three or four Members from each side asking me, "When will the recommendations of your Committee be accepted by the House?"
The Government could perfectly well have ramrodded the report through, but they have not done so. Because they have not done so, they have been subjected to the short-term criticism to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall treated us today. I hope that the Government will stick to the policies that the Leader of the House expounded today. My right hon. Friend can be perfectly sure that, if he had ramrodded the proposals through the House, the same Liberal Democrat Members would have talked about a travesty of democracy. We know their tactics. That is what they would have done.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that during the past two years I have used whatever influence I have to do my utmost to prevent the Government from ramrodding the proposals through the House. I have consistently appealed to my right hon. Friend privately not to ramrod them through. I am sure that that has been right.
Like a few other people here, I was a Member of the House during the Crossman experiment that began when Richard Crossman was Leader of the House from 1966. The proposals that Richard Crossman made never had a broad consensus. As a result, they were made to be unworkable. The Select Committee on Sittings of the


House always knew that. I think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will bear me out when I say that often during the deliberations of that Select Committee, we discussed the Crossman experience and agreed that we should go for a broad consensus if we wanted the recommendations to stick. Of course, one can never get unanimity. I have forgotten which member of the Committee referred to the need for unanimity. I think that it was the Liberal Chief Whip. He rightly made the point that one could never could get unanimity on such matters. However, one has to get as close to unanimity as possible. It is essential to get that broad support.

Mr. Dalyell: Just to be fair, as the late Dick Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that distinguished Members on both sides of the House said one thing and then changed their minds? If the shade of lain Macleod were here, he would confess to that.

Mr. Jopling: I have no recollection, because I was an extremely junior Member in those days, of whether that was true of the discussions and agreements that took place before the proposals were introduced. I do know, however, that right across the Opposition Back Benches there was a dislike of the proposals—although I accept that those on the Front Bench accepted it.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. Jopling: This must be the last time that I give way.

Sir Dudley Smith: I intervene as one of the less distinguished people who were here at that time—as opposed to the powers that be, to whom the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. The proposal was disliked by Members of all parties. The morning sittings failed because people on both sides of the House did not turn up and do their job.

Mr. Jopling: That may well be right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, but I shall not give way any more; I have given way a great deal and I must finish.
The Select Committee's report was balanced. We sought to balance the interests of Government and Opposition and I still believe that the recommendations did that. I have never fully understood why a few hon. Members oppose the proposals. I think that the main opposition is to the timetabling of Bills, but I remind the House that the Select Committee was not specific about that. The Select Committee said that we ought to discuss further how timetabling should be introduced and referred to the Select Committee on Procedure report of 1986.
If the Opposition do not like timetabling, let us not forget that the Government could implement the rest of the report's recommendations perfectly well without it, because they already have huge powers to introduce timetabling if they so desire. In the days when I was Chief Whip, I was very anxious that the Government should never exceed Michael Foot's famous record for timetabling—I think it was five timetable motions in a day. In the early 1980s, I tried my best to ensure that the Government never exceeded that record for guillotines. Since then, there have been many of them and no doubt the

House is moving, to a much greater extent, towards accepting them. But timetabling of Bills could be left out, as the Government would still have all those powers.
Leaving aside some of the shortcomings of this debate, I welcome the opportunity to give a push to some of the report's recommendations. The House has demonstrated considerable patience by trying to wait for a move towards a broad consensus and I hope that that moment has now arrived. I only hope that the present talks will make all our patience entirely worth while.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have frequently heard the Labour Whips' Office referred to by colourful names but redoubt is not one of them. If I appear to be picking up on some of the supposed objections to some aspects of our parliamentary procedure, I hope that I shall be acquitted of doing so on behalf of those venerable ladies and gentlemen, most of whom I get on with very well, but very few of whom would suggest that I spoke on their behalf.
The procedure of the House of Commons is an esoteric subject, on which Members frequently hold forth when they have astonishingly little knowledge of how it actually works. Recently, I was honoured to be asked to go to Kenya to talk about parliamentary procedure. The Clerk of one of our Commonwealth Parliaments was holding forth at great length, partly because he had toothache, about the need for Members of Parliament to understand procedure. He said that it should not be possible for people to become Members of Parliament unless they understood it. I was asked to comment and said that I was sure that that ought to be the way, but that it would rule out 50 per cent. of the House of Commons and a very distinguished gentleman added, "Two thirds."
The way in which we order our business is fundamental to the way in which we take important political decisions. I have become increasingly disturbed by the suggestion that the House can somehow be organised as if it were a pea factory, with people pushing in inputs at one end, running a straightforward manufacturing line through and producing a nice, evenly balanced and beautifully prepared result at the other. That is not the way that it should work. We are here to represent our constituents, who have varied views and real interests. I am concerned that a consensus appears to be developing that will limit the powers of Back-Bench Members to express those views openly and with fervour.
Many of my hon. Friends sitting on these Benches today, let alone those on the Conservative Benches, could be numbered as part of the awkward squad. My very good hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has frequently used the procedures of the House to put over important points that both Front Benches were in danger of glossing over. Therefore, it behoves those of us who have been here a long time and have watched the development of various changes in procedure to look closely at what such changes entail.
I am strongly opposed to the timetabling of Bills. Frankly, that is not because I do not want to go home early. I would be happy to go home at a reasonable hour every night, but I understand that the work of Members of Parliament is becoming even more essential because of the powers that the Executive are taking every day. The Government have set out to hide vast areas of information.


They have changed the business of the civil service, so that there are an increasing number of agencies, which are made up of civil servants but are not answerable to the House of Commons in the way that they once were.
Hansard, which is absolutely essential to many of our constituents because of the information that it contains, increasingly does not have the routine answers—in detailed statistical and political terms—that enable people outside this place to know what the Government are doing in every sphere. The habit of sloughing off responsibility to executives of "next steps" agencies is increasing and can only make it more difficult for Members of Parliament to represent their constituents properly, and that should concern us very much.
Any move that either puts the provision of information a step further away or arranges the procedures of the House in such a way that only limited time can be given to the examination of a Bill can only be a derogation of power from this Chamber and should be considered very carefully.
I was here at the time of the Crossman experiment and the theory behind it was sensible. I listen to Members who say that we should have a proper working day and should organise ourselves completely differently. When do they deal with their correspondence? Who are these Members who are so free of constituency duties that they do not need the mornings to reply to letters from constituents and follow up case work? When do they sit on Committees? Do they not sit on any Committee? Do they never turn up for work on any of the European Standing Committees? Frankly, if that is the case, their advice is not much help.
There have been some useful modifications to our procedure. The European Standing Committees are a sensible development. If they do not work as well as they should, Members of this House must answer for it. If more Members used their right to turn up at European Committees and to ask the Minister detailed, factual questions for an hour, they would get far more information about what was happening to European legislation. They choose not to exercise that power, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
I want the Leader of the House seriously to consider a means of developing the powers of the European Standing Committees so that they have the right not only to study legislation but to amend what is brought before them and to ensure that it is debated on the Floor of the House. At present, it is entirely within the aegis of the Chairman of a Committee to accept a manuscript amendment. There is no guarantee that those amendments will be debated on the Floor of the House. Most simply go through the Chamber virtually on the nod because there is no procedure to consider them carefully. We ought to be able to give them that consideration. The Select Committees, which already have the power to send for people and papers, should have increasing powers, not merely to use the information properly and produce a report but to take detailed information about specific legislation and to debate that here.
My experience of any Government has taught me that they do not necessarily welcome careful and detailed scrutiny of their proposed legislation. Hon. Members who are so keen on altering the procedure might find that their views are slightly different when they are on the other side of the Chamber If the present Government had had that kind of support system, they might not have got themselves

into the bizarre craziness of the poll tax fiasco and they might have had a rather better response to some of their other more disastrous bits of legislation.
For example, one may look at what the Select Committee on Transport did in relation to the Railways Bill. Much of the detailed and factual examination of the effects of privatisation should have made the Government pause, and not just because of the political implications. Many of the things that we warned about are now coming about and the Government will pay the price. In political terms, that does not cause me any great upset, but in reality it is a classic example of the folie de grandeur with which the Government went ahead, irrespective of the views of an all-party Committee that had taken detailed and important information.
Lots of hon. Members want to talk about the matter, and it was only because I felt that some of the issues were going by default that I wanted to contribute to the debate. I am happy to take part in debates in the Chamber in the morning, but it will mean that the work that I do now in my office will be done at some other time. People do not disappear because I do not answer their letters in the morning. Cases do not get simpler because I am elsewhere debating a subject.
The real problems for Parliament are the lack of accurate information about what it does and the refusal of the media to regard us as anything except a series of amusing sketches. Someone looking back to has happened at the present time may regard it as being of some moment that the political pages of our major broadsheets considered the future and past of a couple of beautiful guide dogs—of whom I am very fond—to be of more importance than the debate which took place on the Floor of the House last week.
I am increasingly concerned that both the Leader of the House—who I believe is genuinely interested in the subject and anxious to do something about it—and the Shadow Leader may reach agreements that may be convenient for both Front Benches, but which undervalue the rights of Back Benchers. That is happening all the time. When I first came here, if an hon. Member wanted to propose a ten-minute Bill, it was up to him what time he got up, and he went and queued like anybody else. Now, he has to have the agreement of the Whips. That is a little erosion, and arrangements between the two Front Benches mean that there is a movement away from the rights of Back Benchers.
When I first came here, there were a number of rights, which have since been quietly eroded by agreement between the two powerful Front Benches. That way lies perdition. People have been awkward in the name of democracy in British Parliaments since the 1600s. Those who give up their rights will be extremely sorry, whether they give them up under the banner of Maastricht or under the banner of a careful arrangement of parliamentary timetabling. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech and the freedom of Back Benchers to be damned awkward is what Parliament is all about.

Mr. Michael Brown: I spent 14 years on the Back Benches doing everything I could to exploit, use and—some would say—sometimes misuse the so-called anachronistic procedures of the House. I spent the past 14 months in the House doing everything I could


to ensure that those procedures, without any truck from a Back Bencher, were overwhelmed by the majesty of the Front Bench.
The speeches by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) effectively encapsulate the main debate about the reform of procedure, and they both made legitimate speeches and arguments. There is no doubt that there is a case for reform in the late 20th century. Many new hon. Members have come to the House during the past five or 10 years, and there are young hon. Members and many more lady hon. Members with families who rightly want to consider the case for the modern way of doing things with more "sensible" hours.
Equally, the hon. Lady's point about the need to be wary before we plunge down the road of reform is equally important. I have been both poacher and gamekeeper and I suppose that, for the next few years, I shall be a poacher with an understanding of gamekeeping. There will be occasions when hon. Members who do not form part of a majority in the Lobby may rue the day when they throw away some of the seemingly arcane procedures.
Anybody who ever wanted a lecture on that subject had only to consult the late Bob Cryer when he was alive. He was able to achieve many things for himself and his constituency through his use of so-called arcane and anachronistic procedures.
There was an occasion in the mid-1980s when my constituency was faced with the possibility of receiving nuclear waste. There were three other hon. Members who faced the same possibility—one was the Government's Chief Whip, one was the junior Home Office Minister and the other was the present Attorney-General. I was the only Back-Bench Member, and I concluded that it might just be possible that those who had the Front Bench privilege might somehow be able to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment that perhaps their constituencies should not receive nuclear waste. I concluded that I perhaps might draw the short straw and, for a year or two, I used and misused the procedures of the House, and some accused me of abusing them. I make no apology for having done that.
Liberal Democrat Members who describe the procedures of the House, and the House of Commons in general, as being held in "public contempt" should perhaps have rephrased the first line in the motion. What they perhaps meant to say in the first line was that this House notes the increasing public contempt for politicians, and not Parliament. I do not believe that there is any more contempt for Parliament today than there was 10 or 20 years ago. I am prepared to concede that there is an increasing contempt for politicians, but that is a different issue.
That is why the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was right to remind us of what may happen. In fairness, I think that there is a general majority in the House in favour of going down the road of parliamentary reform, and that is why the Liberal Democrat motion is not the appropriate motion to pass. If we are to go down that road, the document that my right hon. Friend the Member for

Westmorland and Lonsdale and his Select Committee produced some three years ago ought to be the reference point.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may have done the House a service in allowing my right hon. Friend to reiterate the work that has already been done and, to that extent, today's debate may have been worth while. It has also provided an opportunity for the House to be reminded and warned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that individual Back Benchers do have—if they choose to study "Erskine May", precedent and the Standing Orders of the House—many protections. I have watched, from both the Back Benches and the Front Bench, hon. Members successfully defend the interests of their constituents through the use of many of the arcane procedures that the Liberal Democrats might wish to tip away.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has more experience in proving that point than anybody in the House.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the word arcane is sometimes used in complete ignorance? For instance, the Question that I think Mr. Deputy Speaker will put at the end of this debate is that "the original words stand part of the Question". But without that reform, which was made in the early 1970s by the Procedure Committee of which I had the honour to be a member, no minority could vote on its own words. That is a first-rate example of what appears to be arcane, but is fundamentally democratic.

Mr. Brown: I agree absolutely. I am glad to note that it was a Conservative Government—my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was involved in the process—who conceded to that perfectly legitimate request.
I accept that minorities have rights in the House and that minority parties take a great interest in what may happen whenever reforms are proposed by the two major parties. In the past 14 years, I have been a minority of one on more than one occasion—for example, when my constituency was the possible recipient of nuclear waste.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who took issue with the Liberal motion, which calls for an
urgent and comprehensive reform of Parliament, including changes to the format of Prime Minister's Question Time.
We hon. Members have it in our power to reform Prime Minister's Question Time, regardless of anyone else.
I have always attempted, with the aid of the Table Office, to table questions to the Prime Minister on subjects that I want to raise. I will table a question tomorrow, and until my name eventually hits the Order Paper, to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to carry out the commitment he gave at the Conservative party conference in 1992 to abolish the county of Humberside. I will put that question down on the Order Paper, without any suggestion from the Table Office that it should be transferred to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
When the Prime Minister comes to the House on the day when I am lucky in the ballot for Prime Minister's questions, he will know what I want to ask and he will be able to give the answer. I will then have a second bite at the cherry. If any other hon. Members who are concerned


about local government reform in Humberside want to express an opinion, we could have a mini-debate, as we used to do.
Every hon. Member should appreciate how much more effective he or she could be in reforming the procedures of the House by tabling specific questions. It has always amazed me, both from the perspective of the Back Benches and the Front Bench, how few hon. Members, unlike those of 30 years ago, take the opportunity to table a specific question.
Perhaps I should remind the House why hon. Members have opted for the open question. In the 1970s, Harold Wilson and, even more notably, Jim Callaghan, insisted on transferring questions that they felt could be legitimately answered by Departments of State. That is why we invented the open question.
When I came to the House in 1979, I went to the Table Office to table my first parliamentary question. I asked why I had to table a question about the Prime Minister's engagements. The Clerk replied, "You will be interested to know, Mr. Brown, that the new Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, has indicated that so long as your question is in order for the Government, if you wish to ask your question of her, she will answer it." I asked the Clerk whether that meant I could table a question on inflation, trade union laws or whatever and he replied that the Prime Minister had intimated to the Table Office that that was so.
We could reach an agreement between all the parties that the Prime Minister should not transfer any question that the Table Office deemed acceptable for answer by a representative member of the Government. If hon. Members wanted to table that question to the Prime Minister, Back Benchers could, overnight, return to the so-called golden age of Prime Minister's Question Time, when mini-debates were held.
I suspect, however, that if one reads the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Times in the 1950s and 1960s without the benefit of rose-tinted spectacles, they will appear as much of a bear garden as some might say today's Prime Minister's Question Time has become, It will always be so, because, as hon. Members have already said, this is a debating Chamber. This is where we expect the cut and thrust. The Liberal party is somewhat naive—

Mr. Burns: Sanctimonious.

Mr. Brown: I note what my hon. Friend says.
The Liberal party is naive to have a discussion based on an airy-fairy notion that the public are fed up with the cut and thrust of debate. Members of the Liberal party are only too happy to go in for the cut and thrust of debate on the doorstep, when they say all sorts of things that may or may not be true of their political opponents, when it comes to trying to win by-elections. I make no complaint about that; it is political life. When politicians are fighting on the doorstep a by-election, county council elections or European elections, it is perfectly right for them, in a democratic society, to choose to use whatever tactic they think will most advance their cause. It is the same in here as it is out there; that is the richness of our democracy.
Notwithstanding the warnings of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, perhaps there is a case for making some reforms to our procedures now. After all, we spent a lot of time three years ago commissioning my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and his colleagues to study some of our procedures. We should tap

into the mood that appears to exist across the Chamber in favour of making some reforms. There is no doubt that the House and hon. Members of today are different types from those of 30 years ago.
We must recognise that there is a mood in the House for some reform of procedures. We should not accept the terms of the Liberal motion, however, but take the Jopling report as our reference point. Whether we are talking about an individual Conservative or Opposition Back Bencher or a Conservative or Opposition Government, the arcane procedures—calls for the reform of which get cheap claps from our constituents—are the very procedures that sometimes guarantee us, as individual Members, our greatest powers.

Mr, John Garrett: In practice, our Parliament exists to provide the members of a Government and to scrutinise their proposals and their actions to the extent that that Government will allow. That is the problem. It is absolutely clear that that is no longer good enough. Our system of the combination of powers—having Ministers drawn from the legislature—always carries with it the danger of an ineffective Parliament. The Government have exploited that to the full.
In the course of studying Parliament for some years, I have carried out research into parliamentary reform and I have interviewed hon. Members and Officers of the House. I was surprised at the lack of demand for reform and the absence of imagination as to what our Parliament could be. In fact, our Parliament could be made much more effective quite easily, without any procedural revolution.
Two steps are necessary above all else. First, more powers should be given to the Speaker, because the independence of the Speaker is greatly under-exploited. Secondly, more powers and resources should be given to Select and Standing Committees.
The central problem is the overweening power of the Government over Parliament, which diminishes our democratic accountability. Our system is extraordinarily deficient in defending citizens' rights. Indeed, we have no rights which are not in the gift of Government to award or take away. As a consequence of that, Britain has been found guilty of infringing human rights by the European Court of Human Rights more often than any other country that is a signatory to the convention on human rights. In 27 cases, we have been required by the European Court to provide remedies to our citizens. It is clear that Britain should enact the European convention in our own domestic legislation so that British citizens would have direct redress through our courts instead of suffering the protracted processes of the European Court.
We devote the greatest part of our time—about a third—to legislation, yet badly drafted and defective legislation is rushed through the House. Examples are the Football Spectators Bill, the Dangerous Dogs Bill, the poll tax legislation and the Child Support Act 1991. The Government will not allow adequate time or resources for expert consideration. The special Bill procedure, which would allow Standing Committees to take evidence from witnesses on the purposes and likely effect of a Bill, has been used four times in 15 years and has not been used since 1984. Yet when it was used, it was pronounced a


resounding success both by the Opposition and by Ministers subject to cross-examination under the procedure.
Every year, we examine 2,500 pages of primary legislation, yet some 10,000 pages of secondary legislation are pushed through the House with little discussion and no scope for amendment. Much of it is important, filling in the detail of primary legislation or determining such crucial issues as social security entitlements.

Mr. Dalyell: Hon. Members on the controversial Standing Committee on Scottish local government reform, which sat for 177 hours, pleaded courteously and seriously that the witness procedure be brought into operation at the first opportunity, but our wish was absolutely denied. It was not for want of trying.

Mr. Garrett: I am sure that it was not for want of trying. When the Standing Committee on the highly complex Companies Bill voted for the special Bill procedure to be used, the Government refused.
Avoiding parliamentary authorisation all together, the Government have used the royal prerogative ruthlessly—in effect, government by proclamation—to enable the United States to bomb Libya from places in Britain to declare the Gulf War to authorise jury vetting and telephone tapping to regulate the civil service and to ban unions at GCHQ.
The Government use a derivative of the royal prerogative—Crown immunity—to enable Departments to avoid the requirements of such protective statutes as health and safety legislation, as they affect Departments. I cannot see the justification for continuing the royal prerogative, because everything covered by it could easily be set before us properly in primary legislation.
We have inadequate arrangements for pre-legislative consideration and no post-legislative scrutiny. When an Act becomes unworkable, no arrangements exist for the Standing Committee that examined it in the first place to examine its implementation and call Ministers to account.
The Government have also been ruthless in their use of the guillotine, which was used six times between 1950 and 1960, and 43 times between 1979 and 1990. In that area of legislation, new powers should be given to the Speaker. For example, the Speaker should deem any Bill that infringes citizens' rights to require exceptionally careful and lengthy examination with, for instance, evidence-taking sessions by a Standing Committee or the use of a qualifying majority. The Speaker should also determine the timetabling of Bills so that adequate time is given for discussing important or controversial legislation.
Parliament's investigatory functions should be enhanced. It is worth noting that the relationship of Government, civil servants and Ministers to parliamentary Committees is governed by the Osmotherly rules, "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and the Armstrong memorandum, none of which have any statutory force or have been approved by the House. They are simply codes of practice which the Government drop on Select Committees and attempt to enforce.
Since their reform in 1979, Select Committees have been successful, but their work is hopelessly superficial and partial and they do not fulfil their terms of reference. They are established to examine policy, spending and administration, but concentrate exclusively on policy.

They rarely look at Departments' management or spending, mainly because they cannot marshall the expertise or get expert staff to examine the details. A staff of two or three is clearly inadequate for a Select Committee to examine Departments' management and spending, particularly now that the machinery of Government has become so complex and has far outstripped the machinery of Parliament.
A typical Select Committee was originally set up to examine the policy, spending and management of one or two Departments. Now, a typical Select Committee is faced with examining one or two ministerial headquarters; five to 10 agencies; several score quangos; and innumerable contracts with private contractors. They cannot hope to cope with the explosion of information.
As in so many areas, we get Select Committees, which do a reasonable job within their limits, on the cheap. All the Select Committees cost some £3 million a year, of which £2 million is for printing reports. Much more investment must be made in Select Committees if they are to call Ministers to account effectively. They need expert staff capable of analysing the work of Departments, quangos and agencies, and their management and spending programmes. Those skills should be provided by a new research department in the House, staffed by accountants, analysts and specialists. There should also be a department of the Opposition, capable of providing civil service skills to Opposition Members on Standing Committees.
The growth of the flow of information from Government agencies and what I have called elsewhere the "dismemberment" of Government—the turning of Government from a unified civil service to a constellation of different agencies—has been matched by no growth whatever in Select Committees' analytical skills. I hope that a current issue in that area will be raised this week on the Floor of the House. I proposed to the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee that it should carry out a survey on civil servants' attitudes. It is conducting a study of the future of the civil service, but it is not enough simply to examine the great and the good—Ministers, experts and trade union leaders. It is also important to find out how that revolution in government affects ordinary civil servants.
I made the proposal, first, because it is necessary and, secondly, because I wanted to study the principle that Select Committees have the right to a research budget. To my surprise, the Committee accepted the proposal, yet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has refused point blank to allow it to be carried out. Not only is that a breach of privilege but he should be censured for it. Although that Committee can summon 500 civil servants to give oral evidence whenever it wants, the Chancellor of the Duchy refuses to allow it to write to 500 civil servants. I hope that we shall have a debate and censure the Chancellor of the Duchy on that subject.
There are many other examples of the Government's authoritarian, reactionary and anachronistic attitude to Parliament, such as the facilities accorded to Members, the unfriendliness of Parliament to visitors and our constituents, and Parliament's supine attitude in defence of its rights. It is time for a thorough review of the Parliament's role, and I offer a few headings under which such a review could be carried out.
Contrary to constitutional theory, there are some important functions in which Parliament should have an independent locus and standing, neither conferred by the monarch nor in the gift of Government. First, all the


expenditure authorised by Parliament should be audited. At present, that is not allowed. Secondly, our citizens should be educated in parliamentary democracy. We spend virtually nothing on that aspect of our work. Thirdly, we should improve the quality and intelligibility of legislation. That is a matter for Parliament, not the Government, and the Speaker should ensure that legislation is examined for workability and intelligibility. Fourthly, we should protect and advance civil rights. Parliament has a duty to advance civil rights. Fifthly, we should enact and supervise freedom of information and, sixthly, we should oversee the responsible transfer of authority to the European Parliament. That is happening anyway and it should be done properly.
Those demands are not great. If they are to be implemented, we need a progressive Leader of the House who fulfils his terms of reference. Let me remind the Leader of the House of his terms of reference in the "Civil Service List":
to uphold the rights and privileges of the House as a whole".
In my time, two Leaders of the House have attempted seriously to push forward parliamentary reform—Richard Crossman and Lord St. John of Fawsley. Since the time of Lord St. John of Fawsley, the Leader of the House—I am sorry to say it, because the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) is an amiable enough person—has been transformed from someone whose business is to defend the rights and privileges of the House to someone who simply acts as the Cabinet's major-domo.

Mr. Tony Banks: For the time being.

Mr. Garrett: For the time being. I hope that we get a better one.
That is a depressing conclusion. I should have preferred the Leader of the House, instead of spending the first third of his speech being rude to the Liberals or whoever in that silly, schoolboyish way, to devote his attention to what the House of Commons is for and how its rights could be established and entrenched.

Mr. Simon Burns: What a difference an hour makes. An hour ago, the serried ranks of the Liberal Democrats were present for their motion, all sitting "doughnutting" for the television cameras that they knew would be on them. Now the rag-tag and bobtail of the Liberal Democrats remain. Their opening spokesman does not even do them the courtesy of being here to listen to the debate in time for the closing speeches.
This is an issue of great importance to the House of Commons and it is very much an issue which, as many previous contributors to the debate said, can be tackled only through the agreement of the House of Commons and not the imposition of the Executive.
The platitudinous motion, which could have been written on the back of an envelope in the Cock and Bull public house simply to try to appeal to as many people as possible, does not do a service to the House or further the debate. The opening speech did not add much to our sum of knowledge of the subject, except for the extremely interesting admission that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) extracted from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who admitted that the public's perception of the Liberal Democrats as politicians was that they were lazy and not especially interested in this place. I think that the House of Commons

deserves better than that, although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East for at least getting some honesty out of the Liberal Democrats.
The motion begins with the words:
That this House notes the increasing public contempt for Parliament".
That is trite and when, as an individual, one asks one's constituents about Parliament, one does not receive that answer. Yes, one does receive answers that Prime Minister's Question Time and other big House of Commons occasions may be too rowdy, although people certainly concentrate on watching and listening to them on television and radio because they find them informative, interesting and entertaining. That cannot be taken away, as the figures clearly show it.
I would argue that the contempt that people feel is not for the work that goes on in this Chamber or in the Standing Committees and Select Committees, or for the work that we all do as individual hon. Members on our constituency cases, which was so graphically described by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her argument about the hours that we should work. The contempt is at the sharp end of politics which spills over into the House, but which people come up against on the streets and in our constituencies at election time. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but most people respect and admire the campaigning tactics of the Labour party and the Conservative party but utterly reject the campaigning tactics of the Liberal Democrats. They will reject the use of their leaflets. We have seen the handbooks that have leaked into the press, all of which contribute to the contempt of Parliament, telling the Liberal Democrats to jump on to a bandwagon when they know the result so that they can claim the credit when the decision has been taken, and to falsify the opinion polls, to cause confusion in the minds of the electorate as to who may be the main challenger, so that it will benefit the Liberal Democrats. All members of the Labour party and the Conservative party know those tactics. The sad fact of life is that, although it is far divorced from the work in the House, those tactics enhance and increase the contempt for politicians as a profession and for the House of Commons.
Bold statements were made today about there not being enough scrutiny. One of the specific examples given by the hon. Member for North Cornwall was that there was not enough scrutiny in the Committees upstairs. I do not know how many Committees the hon. Gentleman has served on in the past two years when he has been a Member of the House, but I have served on a number of Committees in the past seven years and I have witnessed the line-by-line examination of the Bills that come before us. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats made a positive complaint about the scrutiny that takes place in those Standing Committees.
I take as an example the recent Standing Committee on the Intelligence Services Bill. That important issue was taken upstairs in Committee for vigorous examination before returning to the Floor of the House. One would expect the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) to be an expert on that subject as GCHQ is in his constituency. The people of Cheltenham—and also the hon. Member for North Cornwall, if he had done some research before he made that criticism—might be surprised to learn that the hon. Member for Cheltenham did not turn up to all the sittings of that Committee although it was not only a constituency issue, but, according to the hon. Member for


North Cornwall, an important area in which we must scrutinise the legislation passing through the House and where the House is failing, according to the hon. Gentleman, because it is not taken seriously enough.
If one wishes to make criticisms of procedures in the House—and heaven knows, criticisms can be made—one should at least do it when one's party is whiter than white and squeaky clean. It does no good to the party of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to try to bring the House into disrepute by making accusations of that nature when many hon. Members from all political parties spend a great deal of time in Standing Committees, monitoring and examining the legislation that passes through Parliament.
I was also interested to hear several criticisms about the oral question system in the House. I shall take one example, which my Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned. Specific criticism was made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall about Ministers replying to questions by saying that they would write to the questioner giving greater details as an answer to the question. That is fine if it will increase the knowledge and information that the hon. Gentleman or Lady who has asked the question requires. Moreover, the hon. Member for North Cornwall is quite wrong to criticise that as a failure of the questioning system when exactly that stance was taken this afternoon in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham from the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend who was answering questions this afternoon, the name of whose constituency I cannot remember.

Mr. Kirkwood: Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Mr. Burns: If it is all right for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to do it, it is reasonable for Ministers to do the same thing when they feel that it would enhance the knowledge that they can impart to a colleague.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will forgive me if I say that while I congratulate him and his colleagues on their report, I wish to make several arguments on the subject.
The recommendation to complete the sitting days Monday to Thursday by 10 o'clock and Fridays by 2.30 pm is, in many ways, attractive and appealing. We would not have the ridiculous situation, which even Members who entered the House after 1987 have had to go through, of being here until 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock or even later in the morning. Obviously, no one in their right mind can think straight and do a decent job of work at those hours on top of all the work that they have done in the morning and afternoon of what may be the preceding day but is still the same parliamentary day. However, I repeat the caution issued by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown): if our sitting hours are restricted, the powers of the Executive are increased.
Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I worked here between 1975 and 1979, when the Labour Government had a small majority and then lost it. The House was kept sitting for long hours, night after night. That may have been a crashing bore for hon. Members on

both sides of the House—regrettably, it may even have caused some health problems—but it gave Back Benchers and the Opposition of the day more powers to seek to limit and control the Executive.
That may be an arcane way of operating the procedures of the House, but I do not consider it wise to jump on the bandwagon of automatically restricting the hours of the House to set times that are unrealistically short. That would limit the powers of Back Benchers—the members of the awkward squad about whom we heard in earlier speeches today—and of the Opposition.

Mr. Tony Banks: One aspect of the Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the narrowness of the then Government's majority. Indeed, in a sense they were not a majority Government. In such circumstances, the Back Bencher's power becomes far greater. In subsequent Parliaments, with a Government majority of more than 100, it was obviously far more difficult for the Opposition to catch all Conservative Members out at the same massage parlour on the same night. The power of the Back Bencher is, in a sense, commensurate with the size of the Government's majority.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is right, up to a point. Clearly, it would rarely be possible to whittle away a large Government majority; but if the system and the sitting hours are used to demoralise the Government of the day and their Back Benchers and to argue constantly against whatever is the current issue, it is potentially easier to persuade the Government to backtrack or amend legislation. If we operate in a fixed, rigid straitjacket, the Government will know that at 10 pm or at 2.30 pm that will be it: they will have their legislation.
I merely caution hon. Members to think carefully. I fear that I shall be an old man before it happens, but at some point—probably just before my retirement—we shall have a non-Conservative Government. The torch of opposition will be passed to my younger colleagues, with whom I shall have grown up; I may not have had the experience of opposition. They will feel frustrated if they are put in a straitjacket and prevented from opposing because they have been deprived of the time in which to harry the Government in the traditional way.

Mr. Garrett: In two consecutive sentences of an increasingly fatuous speech, the hon. Gentleman said both that the smallness of a majority enabled Government Back Benchers to exercise more power and that they were demoralised. Which was it?

Mr. Burns: I said that if the Opposition harried the Government, and kept it up night after night, Government and Back Benchers might become demoralised by the sheer physical fatigue of the exercise and the increased time available to Opposition Members to argue their case for change. The Government might then backtrack or amend legislation. I did not say that that would definitely happen, but it is a possibility that would not exist if the Government of the day knew that at 10 pm, for instance, the business must end and a Bill or a Report stage would be secure.
I certainly believe that the time came many years ago for us to amend the early-day motion system radically. It is a gross abuse, and a ridiculous, pathetic opportunity for parliamentary graffiti. Some absurd motions have clearly been tabled for the benefit of the "Wapping Times", the


"Brentwood Gazette" or whatever the Member of Parliament's local paper may be. We should get a grip: the system is a waste of time and money which genuinely misleads the public. Special interest lobbying groups tell them, "Write to your Member of Parliament: get him to vote for this motion, or sign that motion—we can change the world by ensuring that it is passed by the House of Commons."
As we all know, most of these ridiculous motions never see the light of day on the Floor of the House. Some of those prayed against by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats reach the Floor of the House or are dealt with in Committee: that, indeed, is what the procedure should be for. The others, however, are a waste of time. The system should be changed as quickly as possible, to save time and money and to lower the expectations of people outside who assume that because the motions are on the Order Paper of the House of Commons they are much more important than they are. I hope that the issue will be re-examined soon by my right hon. Friend and by the relevant Committee.
I welcome the reference in the report to restricting ways and means debates to 45 minutes. The late Bob Cryer was a past master in this regard, rightly using the procedure to highlight what he perceived as injustices or other faults in legislation, but open-ended ways and means debates were potentially vulnerable to abuse. The implementation of the recommendation for reform will benefit the workings of the House.
Paragraph 98 of the report, which deals with proxy voting, recommends that
the Speaker and representatives of all parties should convene a conference with a view to making recommendations on this matter.
Again, I urge caution. Part of the nature of the Chamber is that we must enter the Aye and No Lobbies through what some may consider archaic procedures. After eight minutes, the doors are locked and they are not unlocked until the end of the vote. We cannot have a system—I accept that the recommendation does not suggest such a system, but it has been suggested—enabling hon. Members to press a button to vote. There are only 437 places in the Chamber, and it does not possess the "desk" system that many other legislatures have.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has suggested pressing buttons in the Lobby walls. I do not think that that would work; it does not get round the system of proxy votes. If we are to vote here, all who wish to vote should be present to cast their votes. The 1979 general election was triggered by the fact that one Labour Member was unable to come to the House to vote; due to illness, he had to stay up in Yorkshire. Paradoxically, I believe, a late Member of Parliament who represented Fermanagh and South Tyrone came over as a guest of the Labour Whips to abstain in person—much to the shock of the Labour Whips who, having flown him over, had apparently locked him in the Strangers Bar with plenty of light refreshment to keep him happy. It would take away a great deal from the nature of the Chamber and the way in which we do our business if we were to introduce a form of proxy vote.

Mr. Jopling: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says as I did a little research into the matter some years ago. We know that the average large Division in this House takes about 12 minutes. I inquired into the amount of time it takes for a Division in the United States, which has electronic voting. I discovered that even with that system

a Division takes no less time. In addition, our system of voting gives Back Benchers a tremendous opportunity to buttonhole and cross-examine, on the move, members of the Executive.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I whole-heartedly agree with him, especially on his latter point. As he says, our system gives us a golden opportunity to speak to Ministers and even the Prime Minister, which would not be possible with a different voting system.
We could, however, make a change which would not need legislation or debate and end the prolonging of open-ended debates and the wasting of time by the calling of unnecessary and fatuous votes simply to delay our Adjournment each evening. It is within the power of even just two hon. Members to call a Division. If Members would act in a more mature and restrained manner, we could overcome that problem.
We could also overcome the ridiculous procedure that has been evident on Fridays in recent months of hon. Members calling "I spy Strangers" simply to disrupt the business. On one occasion in December it was done to obtain an automatic change of business because there were not sufficient hon. Members present to vote—despite the fact that it was an extremely important debate in which a number of hon. Members wanted to participate because it was of specific interest to their constituents. After about an hour and a quarter of that debate, which should have lasted five hours, it was automatically curtailed through the arrogance of two hon. Members who felt that it was their duty and right to end a debate in which they had no interest. There is something ridiculous about a system which allows that and it could be amended overnight by hon. Members behaving in a more restrained and respectable way.

Mr. Bruce George: Anyone listening to this debate and hoping that the decline of Parliament will be arrested or reversed will be disappointed—unless he or she is married to a member of this Government or the next Government, in which case they will be delighted because it is obvious that the system is dominated by the Executive or the alternative Executive. If we add together the members of the Government, their Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the shadow Cabinet—almost as numerous as the Government—the former Ministers who still think as they did when they were in the Executive, the "wanabees"—those who would do almost anything to become members of the Executive—and those Members of Parliament who are coasting gently towards retirement or life after death in another place, the potential block of reformers diminishes to such an extent that hardly anyone is left to bear the torch of parliamentary reform.
There are those who are happy to watch the game of Government and Parliament being played between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. In a way, we undervalue ourselves as individuals, as parties and as a collective if we assume that once we make that journey in a car driven by a chauffeur and have our hands in a red box, somehow qualitatively and in intelligence and knowledge we are apart from the rest—that somehow on the two Front Benches there is a monopoly of competence and a residue of all the intellect, demands and requirements necessary for governing a country. Many people still think that, but surely experience should have taught even them that that perspective is wrong.
I do not argue for a Congress-style government. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) spoke of Congress being rather bland. I would swap the noise and excitement of this House for a little of the blandness of the US Congress because that is a real legislature—a policy-making legislature and not a policy-influencing or rubber-stamp legislature such as this place has been for a century. We shall go into the next century as supine in relation to the for the moment invisible Executive as we have been in the past.
Some of us do not necessarily want our Chamber to be called a legislature if we do not meet the basic requirements of a legislature. Almost every part of our society has seen major change during the past 20 to 50 years. Few structures in society have been left unaltered; yet parliamentary procedures and structures have been left almost intact. Apart from the lack of top hats, beards and gas lighting, a returning Disraeli or Gladstone or an analyst such a Trollope would find the House of Commons almost exactly as he had left it.
There have been changes—many, many changes—to the way in which our procedural proposals have been implemented, but let us not mistake change for reform. Changes there have been many; reforms there have been few. There has been much constitutional tinkering, but what is needed is basic reform—not necessarily immediate reform of the structures, but first a reform of attitude. I suspect that the attitude to reform is as weak now as it ever has been.
Some 10 years ago, after the 1980–81 reforms, I wrote a chapter on parliamentary reform in a book and I was rather excited about the changes that had taken place. Using something of a D-Day analogy 10 years in anticipation, I said that we had now stormed the beach head and it remained only to fan out into enemy territory and capture more and more of the bastions held by the Executive. Ten years later, however, we are as far away from reform as ever. Reform flickers on, kept alive by a few distinguished colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is one, and there are hon. Members on both sides who maintain the desire for reform—but tradition is strong and inertia even stronger.
In the early 1980s, there were many important changes. There was a Procedure Committee report in the mid-1970s, although only about one third of its recommendations were implemented. In 1980, we gained Select Committees, Special Standing Committees, better staffing levels, better salaries, financial reform and a House of Commons Commission. Those were substantial changes. I had hoped that a new Parliament would be strong enough to defy the Executive in some ways. There was a large influx of Conservative Members who previously had been in business, who were used to being the shakers and the movers. I had hoped that when they came to this place they would shake and move—and so they did, but into inertia. The result was that those reforms stalled and came to nothing. The Leader of the House mentioned the few little, titillating things that may come about. That is not fundamental reform. It is reforming on the edges and it will not remotely deal with the fundamental weakness of this House. We are too supine, too prepared to listen to what the Government say on their side of the House and to what our

Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen say on ours. Those great days of the 1970s were great days because Government Back Benchers had some influence. The Government had to take their own Back Benchers into account, which is not often done. The Opposition were happy because they had a great input in decision making. The Liberal party was happy because, for a while, it had some sort of input into decision making.
I hoped that the Select Committee on Procedure and that environment of the 1970s would provide the push for reform, which would have made the House a genuine legislature. What happened after the first reforms which introduced the four Special Standing Committees? Why was that experiment abandoned? It was abandoned for one simple reason. The Bills considered were non-contentious and absolutely non-controversial. The Criminal Attempts Bill—a little controversial—the Education Bill, the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill were not basically fundamental dividing pieces of legislation, but the Government got a bloody nose. One Bill to amend the sus law was based, apparently, on the recommendations of a professor from Nottingham, but when he came before the inquiry part of the Standing Committee he said that he might have supported the Bill's principles a little time previously, but that, having seen the legislation drafted, he was totally opposed to it. It was game, set and match, and clause 1 of the Bill was withdrawn. It happened to the other Bills, too, so the Government said that they did not want the legislature to start legislating because it would be the end of the existing system of government. I have set examination questions, such as "Legislation is more the function of Government than the legislature—discuss," and it is absolutely true.
Special Standing Committees are out of the window. Select Committees, the St. John-Stevas—or the Jopling—reforms were very important, but what happened afterwards? What powers did we have? We had great powers to send for persons and papers, to meet from time to time, to appoint advisers. They were basic powers, but the whole thing hardly amounted to a row of beans. We may increase the transparency of Government, if they are prepared to have a little light shone on their activities, but after some 14 years of Select Committees and a great deal of effort involving staff, witnesses, advisers and hon. Members, what have we achieved? On how many occasions have we compelled the Government to change their mind? I suspect that the answer would not be too illuminating because it would be too humiliating to admit that, after thousands and thousands of hours of endeavour, we have made precious little impact on the process of decision making.
With other hon. Members, I have talked to those involved in the newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe. I was in eastern Europe quite recently and people there said that it was wonderful to have me come along from the mother of Parliaments, with a fine Defence Committee, and asked me to tell them what we do. They asked me to give them the secrets of our control over the budgetary process. I said, "I am sorry, but we do not have much control". They asked me what control we had over intelligence services. I said, "I am sorry, but we do not have any control at all over the intelligence services". They asked me to tell them what impact our Select Committees have on legislation. I said, "Actually, the process of legislation and the Select Committee procedure are quite


separate. We have not the slightest effect on the legislative process". They said to me, "You are on the Defence Committee, Mr. George. What impact does your Committee have on the procurement process? How much of your budget is taken up with defence expenditure? What part do you play in deciding whether major or smaller items of expenditure are allowed to continue? I said, "I am very sorry, but we do not have the slightest impact." It is humiliating and embarrassing. I am not surprised that they are not asking us to tell them any more about how to become a Parliament, as we have very little to tell them. In the Ukraine recently I asked someone what they did in their Parliament and they rattled off a list of functions and powers. I told that person that people there had have achieved more in two years than we had in 700; they should not be listening to us—we should shut up and listen to them.

Mr. Jopling: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most members of the departmental Select Committees in the House would die of shock if they were told that they had to deal with legislation as well?

Mr. George: It is not that members or supporters of the Government would necessarily feel excluded. I suspect that, if we had Special Standing Committees, Members on the Opposition Front Bench would feel a little excluded from the process. I should like to see Select Committees having a bigger legislative role. We spend a lot of time on the issues of foreign affairs, defence and education and it may be sensible that those people who develop an expertise should have some input into the process of legislation.
I am sorry to have gone on for far too long—almost as long as the Minister, the Opposition spokesman and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Back Benchers will probably spend less than half the amount of time talking about parliamentary reform that those on the Front Benches took. I am conducting a survey of defence committees in 50 countries throughout the world and one thing is patently obvious from the 35 replies that I have received. I can put historical and contemporary defence committees from all those countries into three bundles. The United States Congress is alone. At the other end of the continuum is the supreme soviet of the Soviet Union and those former communist eastern European legislatures which had no effect on policy whatever. I would put the mass of other legislatures in the middle, but they all do more on their defence committees than we do. We have one thing in common with France: we are both supine legislatures, totally dominated by our respective Executives. So long as we are prepared to tolerate that—

Mr. Garrett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. George: Yes, but I was about to finish.

Mr. Garrett: I very much sympathise with what my hon. Friend says and he is absolutely right, but surely our Select Committees have all the terms of reference that they need. All that they lack is the ambition on the part of their members to be more effective. That is the heart of problem.

Mr. George: I said earlier that it was an attitudinal problem more than a procedural problem. Our Defence Committee is very active, there is a 76 per cent. attendance rate, we produce many reports and we do a very good job, but we have been so used to being spoon fed and to having big brother tell us what to do that we would not know what

to do if we were given the freedom to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is absolutely right. There ought to be collusion between all the eight sets of Back Benchers. That happens occasionally when we discuss pay and research assistants, but those are the only occasions on which there is a cross-party Back-Bench alliance. I like to think of myself as a Back Bencher in the House. I am not ashamed of being a Back Bencher only. I am not ashamed that I have not been called to high office. I believe that being a Back Bencher ought to be important, but regrettably it is not important. I should like to see Back Benchers on both sides of the House getting together against the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench, and perhaps even against hon. Members on some part of the Liberal Democrat Bench, to say that we must do more. We have a collective expertise that is not insignificant. Let us try to exercise those powers more strongly than in the past. Let us try to defy our Front Benches a little more and perhaps we shall see a Palace of Westminster that is vibrant and not merely an echo chamber for our respective Front Benches.

Mr. David Harris: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) struck a chord in his concluding remarks with those of us who have never held office, and never will, in this place. I congratulate him on the content of his speech and on the atmosphere that he created. To be honest, I think that he is rather pessimistic about the reforms or changes that have taken place. I suspect that, deep down, he is arguing for a separation of powers between the House and the Government, but that separation cannot take place. A relevant comparison, perhaps, is the way in which the House does its work and the approach adopted by the United States Congress. That, however, is a wider subject and I do not want to trespass on it.
Shortness of time—perhaps this is just as well—precludes me from saying very much about the Liberal Democrats' motion. The leader of that party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), sets out in his book—I hasten to add that I have not bought a copy; instead I obtained a copy from the Library—with some pride how he decided to leave the House for two and a half days every week to travel round the country.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates a free plug for "Beyond Westminster: finding hope in Britain". I suppose that most of us do not have the luxury of leaving the House for two and a half days a week, depending on our parliamentary duties. There may be a few who think that the right hon. Gentleman's approach is treating Parliament with contempt, but I let that pass.
I want to talk about the Jopling Committee's report because I was a member of that Committee. I agree very much with the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Indeed, I often agree with the hon. Lady, as she knows so well. We serve together on a Standing Committee on European Documents. I agreed with her so much when she said that the House cannot be treated like a factory. Basically, parliamentary democracy is a messy business. It cannot be organised to the nth degree. In modern Labour party terms, I suppose that I count myself as a moderniser of the House. Given all the arguments that the hon. Lady advanced so


eloquently, we should not be prevented from trying to do our job or from trying to ensure that the House does its job that much better than it does now.
Things have changed dramatically in the past 20 years or so. I arrived in the Press Gallery as a journalist more than 30 years ago. That being so, I am aware of the changes that have taken place, not least in the workings of the parliamentary press.

Mr. Dalyell: Its representatives are not here.

Mr. Harris: One or two are. At 5 o'clock, there was only one reporter in the Press Gallery, who was from the Press Association. When I came to the Press Gallery decades ago, The Daily Telegraph, for which I worked, had a substantial Gallery staff as well as a Lobby staff. Two of us were always left on until 4 am, which was the final time for the last edition. We remained so that we could flash through to the stop press the immortal words, "The House was still sitting at 4 am." Nowadays, not many journalists are in the Press Gallery, and certainly not after 6 pm. I am not saying, of course, that we should tailor our proceedings in response to the publicity that we get or do not get, but attendance in the Press Gallery is one change in the equation.
There have been many other changes, including some that I think and hope make it inevitable that the time has come for the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The tragic death of the Leader of the Opposition, the late John Smith, has given impetus to the report. It is recognised that there is a need for change.
In addition, there was the lamentable breakdown of relationships between the two Front Benches a short while ago. I shall not go into the reasons, because I think that most of us have forgotten what the argument was about. That breakdown told us, however, that the Opposition do not achieve their aims by trying to keep the House up all night. Those days have gone. They might have applied some years ago, but the Great British public are certainly not impressed nowadays by the macho business of the House sitting right through the night. That cuts no ice outside. Oppositions do not achieve their aim by going in for those tactics. Governments, both Conservative and Labour, are usually resilient enough to withstand that sort of pressure. As I have said, no one is listening and no one is impressed. That is a great change.
The attitude of the membership of the House has changed. It is true that many of those who have come into the House in recent intakes regard staying up all night as nonsensical.
The most important reason why we should change our procedures is that we need to make the current way in which we approach legislation much more effective. It is nonsensical for us to spend hours and hours, especially in Committee or on Report, either in Committee Rooms or on the Floor of the House, on matters that do not count—time-wasting matters. When that happens, the Government introduce a timetable motion. We then have to rush through the concluding parts of the Bill without due consideration. It is far better to have a sensible timetable—we can argue about how we arrive at it—and consider the Bill in a measured way. I think that that approach will make for much better government.
We have every reason to criticise all Governments for bringing so much unprepared legislation before the House. For a time, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Howe, as he is now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Very distinguished.

Mr. Harris: Indeed. When he was Leader of the House, I was appalled at the way in which draftsmen had not prepared legislation because of the pressure that had been put on them, in a proper way. It was taken for granted that much of that legislation would be corrected in Committee, on the Floor of the House or in another place. That is not the right way to proceed. We want much less legislation and much better-quality legislation, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. Those developments are essential.
The right time must be taken to consider reports such as that which has been produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. As I have said, I think that its time has come, just as I think that the introduction of the televising of the House took place at precisely the right time. I was opposed to the televising of our proceedings when it was proposed earlier, but I took the view that, with changing circumstances, it was right to introduce it when it happened, not least for technical reasons. Despite what was said much earlier in the debate, it has been a great success. If we approach the Jopling report in the spirit of consensus, the changes outlined in it will similarly be a great success.
Finally, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I thought that he came in for some unfair criticism from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). I believe that my right hon. Friend has approached the issue in the correct way. I was pleased to hear the tribute paid to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). My right hon. Friend is proceeding carefully. He has to balance all the difficulties that lie with the need for reform against the sensible points made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. These are difficult matters, but I am confident that the House is now reaching consensus. I believe that the consensus will result not in the dramatic changes that some Members want but in a structure that will enable the House to perform its ancient function in modern times in a much better way than it has done in recent years.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the two minutes available, I want simply to focus on Prime Minister's questions.
Last autumn, I was incapacitated following a hip operation. Therefore, I had to watch Tuesday's, Wednesday's and Thursday's "Westminster Live". Never was there a greater misnomer among programmes. It was not Westminster live at all. It was punditry and Prime Minister's questions.
That leads me to the point that many of our constituents have the impression that Parliament is simply Prime Minister's questions and little else. Bluntly, sitting there, I was ashamed of how the House of Commons looked.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that it was not a question of rapier-like debate. It was a bear garden. There were very few rapier-like debates. I believe that there is a solution to that. First, television has an obligation to broadcast


questions other than Prime Minister's questions and to give a good deal of time to them. Great credit often comes to the House of Commons from specific questions.
We should return to the very old days when my first Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, would transfer any question which was not directly relevant to the office of Prime Minister. That had several advantages. It led to coherent questioning and the Prime Minister would know what subjects he had to address.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House a question. How much time, effort and energy does the Prime Minister of the day have to spend having the day's papers examined in an effort to identify what questions he is likely to be asked?

Mr. Harris: All morning.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) says all morning. I do not think that the Prime Minister of Great Britain should have to spend all morning searching around and wondering what he or she would be asked. I hope that an incoming Labour Prime Minister would not have to do that. That was one of the points that I raised with John Smith. The amount of civil service time taken up in that procedure is absolutely appalling.
There is an answer to that problem, and that is the use of the private notice question by the Opposition Front Bench. If that process were used, there could be coherent scrutiny which is simply not possible under a system which, whether or not we like it in this House, has become a disgrace to Parliament.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up this important debate for my party. I have enjoyed listening to some excellent contributions from all parts of the House. However, I was saddened by the fact that some hon. Members preferred to close their eyes to the real issue. They are like people on the Titanic insisting that the ship is unsinkable as they slide across the dining room floor which is at an angle of 45 deg. They argue that our parliamentary democracy is in safe hands as long as it is in the hands of the Conservative Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a telling and important contribution. I heard no argument against his position from any hon. Member which persuaded me that his analysis was faulty. Whatever some Conservative or Opposition Members may feel, it is quite obvious to me that Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, has seen its reputation collapse.
In my constituency and around the country, I am frequently asked what on earth Members of Parliament are playing at down here in Westminster. Very often that question is put as a joke because that is how our antics are viewed by a vast proportion of the public. However, the sad fact is that it is no laughing matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made his points very well. The picture that he painted was worrying to any believer in the value of the democratic process. However, for those who still doubt that there is any need for change, the way in which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and other private Members' Bills have been treated is a perfect example of everything that has gone rotten at the heart of government. It provides

overwhelming evidence for the kind of reform of Parliament for which we have been calling for a good many years.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Lady is right to particularise about issues of concern. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has now been discussed here and in the House of Lords for 37 and a half hours. There has been no vote against its principles or purpose. It has been subjected to systematic obstruction.

Ms Lynne: I am grateful for that intervention. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been brought before this House 12 times in the past 20 years. Disabled people today are in almost the same position that they were in 20 years ago. They are still second-class citizens. They are still denied their basic civil rights and they are still unable to take their rightful place in society and make the contribution to that society that they are able to make. The reason is that the Government did not like the Bill. What a disgrace and what total abuse of power.
The Government have not liked previous Bills conferring civil rights on disabled people. However, civil rights for disabled people is a very popular idea. No one can understand why disabled people should not be given the same rights as women and ethnic minorities whose special rights are guaranteed in law. Those views, which are held in the country, are also held in this House where an overall majority of hon. Members, from all parties and from both sides of the House, support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. However, the Government do not like the Bill.
We are in a position where the majority of people in the country and the majority of hon. Members want civil rights legislation for disabled people, but because the Government, for their own peculiar and dogmatic reasons, do not want that legislation on the statute book, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is an abuse of the principle that Parliament is sovereign. It replaces that principle with a notion that it is the Government who should be able to dictate every aspect of our lives quite irrespective of the concerns of modern British society.
That situation shows up most glaringly the urgent need for the reform of the procedure by which the merits of private Members' Bills are tested in the House. After all, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is not the only example of a private Member's Bill which has been wrecked by the Government, but, in my opinion, it is one of the worst. The same thing happened to the Medicines Information Bill, the Tobacco Advertising Bill and the Energy Conservation Bill, to name just a few.
The Medicines Information Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), sought to amend section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 and give the public a right to know facts about the safety and effectiveness of medicines, the reasons for a licence having been granted and details of any side-effects reported after licensing. The Bill was supported by almost every medical body, by the National Consumer Council and by groups representing people who are the victims of the side-effects of drugs. However, the Bill had two opponents: certain sections of the pharmaceutical industry and the Government.
The Medicines Information Bill went through its first two stages without much of a hitch. However, the wrecking


amendments appeared all of a sudden in Committee. The fate of the Bill was therefore sealed. On Report, more than 40 extra amendments were tabled, and the Bill was talked out. So much for the commitment to open government that was made by the Prime Minister from his soapbox only a year previously. So much for parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: I am afraid that I do not have time; the Leader of the House wishes to speak.
The fate of the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which was sponsored by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), was the same. The purpose of that Bill was to ban tobacco advertising so that young people especially were not tempted to take up smoking. The idea behind it was to reduce the incidence of smoking-related illness which, apart from being a tragedy to sufferers and their families, is a huge financial burden on the health service. Once again, the Bill was supported by all medical bodies and had widespread support from the public at large and the majority of hon. Members. The Bill had two opponents: yet again the Government and the tobacco industry.
In Committee, wrecking amendments were tabled and defeated, so on Report 108 amendments were tabled by Conservative Members and, yet again, the Bill was talked out. So much for the sovereignty of Parliament.
The Energy Conservation Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), was another tragic case in point. I say "tragic" because its provisions would have led to help being given to those suffering most acutely the imposition of VAT on fuel. Again, that Bill had widespread support in the House, support from concerned organisations and support from people throughout the country, but, once again, the Bill was opposed by the Government. Many amendments, this time drafted by parliamentary counsel, on the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Environment, were tabled and the Bill was talked out. So much for the Government who listen.

Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: I am afraid I do not have time. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the Leader of the House wishes to speak.
So much for the Government who listen and who believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. The Government, with impunity, use their control over the allocation of time in the Chamber to stifle any legislation however popular, however necessary and however important if they and their friends in big business find their own reasons for doing so.
Recently, a more sinister development has come to our attention. During debate on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I and other Members requested the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and Back-Bench Conservative Members to reveal the source of the amendments that they had tabled. The answers to those questions resulted in two Members, including the Minister, being forced on to the Floor of the House to apologise for misleading the House. That was an unprecedented occurrence within anyone's memory. They had been hiding the fact that many of the amendments that had been tabled had been drafted by civil servants in the form of parliamentary counsel, not only under instructions from

the Department, under the Secretary of State for Social Security, but with the collusion of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education.

Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: I am afraid I do not have time; it is 6.52 pm.
That civil servants should be used in that way to further party political policy is to plumb new depths of abuse.
Through a series of further written questions, I managed to force an admission from four Ministers that they had authorised parliamentary counsel to draft amendments to private Members' Bills that were opposed by the Government. Those amendments were then passed to Conservative Back-Bench Members so that they would do the Government's dirty work. It is obvious that that practice has become endemic. It is obvious also that the civil service is no longer independent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall rightly said, comprehensive reform of Parliament is needed so that those abuses do not occur again. But, as a first step, the Government could show their willingness to tackle the crisis of confidence by changing the procedure by which private Members' Bills are considered. Private Members' Bills should be eligible for timetabling in the same way as Government business, a whole day should be devoted to Third Reading, and a vote should then be taken. Perhaps also the ten-minute rule could be applied to debate on private Members' Bills to prevent filibuster. That matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee. One of its suggestions which seems to have merit is that, at 2.30 pm on Fridays, private Members should be able to move that extra time be provided on a later Government day after 10 pm. That would go some way to redressing the balance between Government business and private Members' Bills, although not as far as I should like it.
At the moment, the Government of the day can crush without difficulty any legislation that they do not explicitly approve. The elderly people of this country who have lost the opportunity for savings against VAT on fuel deserve the ending of that systematic abuse. The children who, in the next few years, will be attracted to smoking, and the bereaved families of smokers who died from their addiction deserve changes to be made urgently to the Government's power over the business of the House.
The victims of the side-effects of drugs who were unable to judge for themselves whether to balance the benefits of drugs against their side-effects deserve the restoration of the sovereignty of Parliament so that it becomes more than just a slogan. The disabled people of Britain who have to face yet another day of systematic and institutionalised discrimination deserve the Government doing more than just paying lip service to our democratic institutions.
Hundreds of hon. Members are trying to represent their constituencies fairly and honourably, but they are being thwarted by the Government's obsession with their own dogmatic concerns and sectional interests. I ask that the House supports the motion which could lead us into a new era of enfranchisement, involvement and enablement—the true constituents of a real democracy. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

Mr. Newton: With the leave of the House, I shall offer just a few comments on the debate, although obviously in a few minutes—I accept that I sought only a few minutes—I cannot comment on all the points that have been made, by any manner of means.
I understand why the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said what she did and, perhaps, why she did not wish to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). One of the interesting aspects of this matter is that my right hon. Friend's Committee—I think that my right hon. Friend will confirm it—has received almost no representations whether from the Liberal Democrats or from elsewhere about the handling of private Members' Bills, but no doubt he will have heard with interest some of the points that have been made.
The only point that I make in response to the hon. Lady is that she might at least have acknowledged that the Government have made clear their reasons for concern about the practical consequences of the proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and their concern to make positive progress, to the extent that the Government themselves will consult on a number of key matters in relation to discrimination against disabled people—for example, discrimination in employment, in access to goods and services, and in the provision of financial services. They will consult also on extending access provisions and creating a new independent body to advise the Government and to report on progress towards eliminating discrimination. That is an important and positive attempt to seek genuinely workable and practicable ways forward, and the hon. Lady might at least have acknowledged that in pursuing the controversy.
Many other points have been made. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging that he feels, as I do and as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) does, that it is important to make progress in this matter on the basis of consensus to the maximum possible extent. That has certainly been my approach.
We heard with great and genuine interest the cautionary notes struck by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and others about how, sometimes, procedures that are regarded as arcane and complex are nevertheless an important part of hon. Members' armoury in pursuing their interests as Members. I say only—I see that the Liberal Chief Whip is looking anxiously at his watch lest I should talk the motion out, but that is not my intention—that some remarks made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and some of my hon. Friends were less than gracious. Perhaps he gave the game away when he said that the problem was not the powers that the Government have given Select Committees or the efforts that I have made, but, and I think that I noted his comments right, that all that these Committees lack is the ambition of hon. Members to use those powers. That may or may not be the case, but it is a criticism not of the Government but of hon. Members.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 187.

Division No. 266]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hinchliffe, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barnes, Harry
Jamieson, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, CS)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mackinlay, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Maclennan, Robert


Chidgey, David
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Etherington, Bill
Olner, William


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Galloway, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Garrett, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Bruce
Tyler, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hall, Mike
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Hanson, David
Mr. Nigel Jones.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dixon, Don


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aspinwall, Jack
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fishburn, Dudley


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Callaghan, Jim
Harris, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Church, Judith
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Congdon, David
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)






Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Lewis, Terry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madden, Max
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thomason, Roy


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. David Lightbown.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments.)

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 54.

Division No. 267]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Clappison, James


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)



Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dykes, Hugh


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Elletson, Harold





Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Page, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pawsey, James


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Pickles, Eric


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gallie, Phil
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
Richards, Rod


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Riddick, Graham


Gillan, Cheryl
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hannam, Sir John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Harris, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Haselhurst, Alan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hawkins, Nick
Sproat, Iain


Hayes, Jerry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Steen, Anthony


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Stephen, Michael


Horam, John
Stern, Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Streeter, Gary


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thomason, Roy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Trotter, Neville


Lightbown, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Luff, Peter
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Walden, George


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Waterson, Nigel


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Whittingdale, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Willetts, David


Merchant, Piers
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Yeo, Tim


Moate, Sir Roger



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hall, Mike


Barnes, Harry
Hanson, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Harvey, Nick


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hutton, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Chidgey, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, CS)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cousins, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)






O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, William
Turner, Dennis




Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Spellar, John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government for its initiative in setting up the Select Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee); supports the objectives of making agreed improvements in the House's hours of sittings and working methods; and welcomes the Prime Minister's recent statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to progress on parliamentary reform.

SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,

That the Speaker have leave of absence on Friday 24th June to attend in her constituency upon Her Majesty.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Marks Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 86

POWER TO PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS, C. FOR MIXED PARTNERSHIPS AND BODIES CORPORATE

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 36, leave out lines 41 to 47.
The amendment reflects the fears of the Patent Solicitors Association that confusion will be caused by the use of the term "attorney". I understand that clause 86 originated from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and was moved in good faith. Let me say at the outset that I share the hon. Gentleman's laudable aim of finding for professionals who deal with trade marks a term that does not have negative connotations in the United States, France, Germany or elsewhere. Likewise, I share his aim of ensuring that litigation on trade mark matters is made cheaper and easier.
I would certainly welcome stronger support among Conservative Members for the key role played by the Patent Office and for Labour's fight to protect the excellent record of its workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who is in his place, has supported those workers.
The Patent Solicitors Association, which strongly supports the Bill, is highly critical of the introduction of clause 86 at a very late stage and at short notice. The association contends that the use of the term "trade mark attorney" will cause misunderstandings and even deception; that the word "attorney" implies to businesses and the public that the practitioner is a qualified lawyer, when that is not the case; that attorneys will be subject to discipline from professional bodies and ultimately the Supreme Court, when they will not; that they carry indemnity insurance, which they do not; and that they are trained in all aspects of the law and litigation practice, when they are not so trained.
According to the Patent Solicitors Association, the term "trade mark attorney" is not recognised in Europe. In the United States, an attorney is someone who is a qualified lawyer, and who has passed the exams of the state bar—a very different type of professional. Assurances have been given that trade mark agents are highly qualified by examination, but that is not the case. The register of members of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents reveals that only 38 per cent. of the members and fellows have passed the institute's exams. That means that of the 416 full members only 158 were so qualified while 258 were not. If those members, who form a majority in the institute, were to be known as attorneys, the public would be likely to believe them to be legally qualified when they were not and would consider them to be lawyers when they were not.
I do not seek to impugn the excellent work of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, but I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on the reservations that I have


expressed, especially as other controversial clauses on unfair competition and lookalike products have been withdrawn.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I have listened with interest to the points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has made. His amendment would delete clause 86, but I am not convinced that we should follow that course. I do not recall any dissent in Committee from the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), which would allow registered trade mark agents to use the title "trade mark attorney". It is important to remember that the full title, not simply "attorney", would be used.
Moreover, as hon. Members will recall from the Committee, I reported that the overwhelming view of the departmental standing advisory committee on industrial property following consultation on the matter was in support of such a move. Although registered trade mark agents may not have a general legal qualification or be qualified as solicitors, they are qualified in trade mark legal practice by examination or experience. Their names also appear on the register maintained by the Institute of Trade Mark Agents—the professional body which exercises control over them. As I said in Committee, what is at issue is the use of the title "trade mark attorney", not the use of the word "attorney" on its own. Therefore, there should not be any confusion in the minds of the public.
One of the hon. Members who took part in the debates in Committee was the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I go some way towards agreeing with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South that the hon. Member for Newport, West follows such subjects closely and also follows closely what goes on in the Patent Office. He gave a broad welcome to the change that has been made. Indeed, it received a broad welcome from the Committee. I understand the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South and his wish to raise the point, but I hope that he will not find it necessary to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has clarified one or two points. Although I still have some reservations, I have. no wish to delay the progress of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I have the unusual privilege of welcoming the Bill on behalf of all sections of the House. Indeed, industry has been crying out for years for the protection that we hope that the measure will afford. Trade marks are often one of the best assets of successful businesses. They reflect the investment in quality and service of the work force, the management and the design teams. The confidence that a trade mark can inspire will ensure that the public can shop with an assurance of quality and design. The sad fact is that there have been delays in bringing this legislation before the House—delays which

have cost businesses revenue, hindered investment, cost jobs and are entirely the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade and his Ministers.
In 1990, the Government published a White Paper, "Reform of Trade Mark Law", which responded to businesses' needs to register their trade marks for use in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. It promised simplified procedures for registering trade marks and detailed improvements to detect businesses that held current trade marks.
Business reaction to the White Paper could not have been more favourable. Firms and individuals would save time and money in registering their trade marks. They would also have to spend less on bringing to justice those who infringe copyright, and loopholes in the law would be plugged, making it easier to secure a prosecution.
In summary, this is a measure which business wants and that will give better protection to business and the public. There is no rational explanation for the lengthy delay in enacting it. Ministers have failed to explain to the House, both on the Floor and in Committee, why it has taken more than three years for the Government to introduce legislation on such a widely supported measure.
There is only one word to describe the Government inaction and that is dither. Ministers have dithered for three years. The cost of their dithering has been borne by businesses and the public and it has been high. Present legislation, with its complexities and loopholes, is costing businesses around £30 million every year. By the time that the Bill becomes an Act, British businesses will have lost more than £100 million since the publication of the White Paper. It is a lame excuse for Ministers to say that there has been no time to legislate. I have studied more than 50 measures for which the Government found time to introduce primary legislation, and few merit the same priority as this.
Business has been very patient with the Government. The Bill contains items that were recommended by Sir Reginald Mathys's committee many years ago. We are now on the brink of putting in place safeguards for the 1990s for British businesses and entrepreneurs. Now the Government have decided to tamper with the civil service, which administers patents. Instead of reflecting on the damage done to so many public services by the attack on civil servants, Ministers want to treat them like some fast food franchise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), whom the Minister commended for his activities in highlighting the good work done by the Patent Office, warned the House on Second Reading and in Committee that if its work were tampered with further, the primary losers would be not be civil servants but the public and businesses that generate the wealth of the country. The uncertainty over the future status of the Patent Office has meant that when the European Commission considered where to locate its new office, it did not choose Britain, with a track record of a Patent Office that goes back 119 years, but preferred Alicante in Spain—an airport favoured by certain people who have made a lot of money out of trade mark goods, illegally.
Instead of listening to the concerns of enforcement officers in trading standards departments, Ministers are determined that those key consumer protection services should be split up. It is time for Ministers to listen to trading standards officers and their fears that unscrupulous traders, who infringe trade mark legislation, will still find



legal loopholes. Trading standards officers do not believe that the Bill goes far enough in plugging such loopholes, or that it ensures that seized counterfeit goods can be more easily returned for destruction, by bringing the law into line with section 100 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
My main regrets are that it has taken more than three years for the Government to introduce this uncontroversial Bill, that their delays have cost businesses more than £100 million and that the Bill still has some flaws. In order to give our inventors, businesses and the public some of the protections that they need, however, I commend it to the House, warts and all.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) for welcoming the Bill. He made some of the usual taunts that we heard from him on Second Reading. He could not quite bring himself to give the Bill a general welcome and if he re-reads his speech in Hansard he will see that, if that is the voice of the new European Labour party, some of his comments about Spain will have to be tempered. Perhaps he is on the side of the section of the party of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) rather than that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). However, I am grateful for his welcome for the Bill.
This is a complex Bill, but it is important to industry. I am grateful, therefore, for all the co-operation that has been demonstrated on both sides of the House in speeding its passage through the House. The Bill is a clear example of the Government's commitment to help industry and commerce. A company's trade mark can be among its most valuable assets and a major marketing tool in competing for business at home and overseas.
The Bill deregulates the administrative procedures surrounding the maintenance of registration and that will directly reduce costs for industry and commerce. The Bill will make it easier for a trade mark to qualify for registration and will give registered trade marks wider infringement rights. It will also enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Madrid protocol. All those changes will make it simpler and cheaper for industry and commerce to protect their trade marks, both in the United Kingdom and overseas.
In Committee, we made some changes to the Bill that will help further in that direction. A person who wishes to appeal against a decision of the registrar may, as an alternative to going to court, appeal to a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor, before whom he may be represented by a trade mark agent—or attorney, now—or a solicitor.
Another provision of the Bill that was amended in Committee was that dealing with counterfeit goods. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill strengthens the protection against trade mark counterfeiting, but attention was drawn to a gap in its provisions as they related to the delivering up of counterfeit goods. We have closed that gap. It will now be possible for trading standards officers to seek forfeiture of goods seized whenever they can demonstrate to a court that the goods are counterfeit. That will enable them to dispose of goods that are clearly counterfeit. That is a positive and helpful change, which can only help trading standards officers in their determined efforts to combat trade mark counterfeiting. That was not

part of the original consultation documents and would not have been in the Bill, but it has been included as a result of some court cases that we all know about.
During the passage of the Bill, much attention has been paid to the subject of lookalike products, which are allegedly got up or designed to look like those of brand leaders. Reference was made to that, both in this House and in another place. It was clear that businesses are divided on the question. Many feel that the present law provides insufficient protection against competitors taking advantage of the reputation of established products. Others, however, contend that the law is adequate and that special measures against so-called lookalikes would restrict legitimate competition and reduce consumer choice.
Even if one accepts the need for measures directed against lookalikes, it would not have been possible to deal with them in this Bill, which is about trade marks. A lookalike product may, in an extreme case, copy most of the features of a brand leader, but the one thing that it does not copy is the trade mark. As I said in response to a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), the Bill broadens the definition of what may be registered as a trade mark, so that distinctive attributes of goods, such as their packaging or shape, may be considered for registration as trade marks. The owners of such trade marks then have the right to take action for infringements against anyone using the same or similar marks on the same or similar goods.
The Bill should, therefore, be given a chance to work. If, once it has been in force for a reasonable period, it can be demonstrated that there continues to be a problem, the Government will be prepared to look again at the situation.

Mr. Jim Cousins: If, after the period to which the Minister has just referred, the Government were minded to take action on the matter, in what context and form would they attempt to deal with it legislatively?

Mr. McLoughlin: I said that we will look at the matter after some time, but I cannot at the moment anticipate what will come out as a result of any inquiry that we decide is necessary. The hon. Gentleman cannot get any more than that at the moment because I believe that the Bill goes some way to meeting some of those concerns. I should just like to cover a few others points and the hon. Member may come back later if he wishes.
We certainly understand the points made by the major brand owners. While we are firmly in favour of robust competition, some of the examples of lookalike products do seem to be close to the boundary between what is fair in business and what is not. I would therefore like to warn the producers of those goods. If they continue to sail close to the wind, there will undoubtedly be pressure on the Government and, as I have said, we would look at the matter again.
I know that all hon. Members wish to see the Bill pass on to the statute book and come into force as soon as possible. In particular, there is pressure to bring into force those provisions of the Bill that deal with counterfeiting, so that they are available to trading standards officers to deal with the peak period for the sale of counterfeit goods in the run-up to Christmas. We are sympathetic to that call, and the Government will consider a timetable for implementation to determine by how much the planned date of I December 1994 can be brought forward.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I welcome that, because the Minister has gone half way. Does he recognise that there are two peak periods for counterfeiters? There is a peak sales period in August, which he has not mentioned, and one in December. Will the Government tackle the problems in August, which have been identified by the CBI and the anti-counterfeiting group?

Mr. McLoughlin: I know that this point does concern the hon. Gentleman. Amendments have been made and the Bill will not have completed its stages once we are finished here tonight. That will depend upon progress in another place. I am keen to see the provisions relating to that type of counterfeiting brought into action as quickly as possible.
I am grateful for the constructive and speedy way in which the Bill has been considered by the House. That speed has recognised the Bill's importance to industry and commerce, and to companies and small traders alike. A modern trade mark system is long overdue. This was a manifesto commitment two years ago and I am glad to be able to help discharge it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Insurance

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
As with the previous measure, I am bringing before the House another useful piece of legislation. This, I am often told, is not characteristic of the Government's policies generally, in which case we may be breaking the mould today.
The directives that the regulations implement will be of significant benefit to the people of this country. We in the United Kingdom are fortunate, in that the system of prudential supervision in insurance which is established by the directives reflects our own system of supervision, based on freedom with disclosure. The directives in effect export our regulatory system to other member states, many of which have operated more restrictive systems than we do. One of the most important benefits of the directives—the easing of such restrictions in other member states, and hence the opening of their markets to us—does not therefore appear in the draft regulations that are before the House for approval tonight.
Having said that, I should explain that the directives do not harmonise the rules operated by supervisory authorities throughout the European Community, apart from a basic minimum. They rely instead on mutual recognition, which is much the best way of performing these functions. As such, they are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
The regulations are to be made under powers in the European Communities Act 1972 and mainly amend the insurance Companies Act 1982. Consequential amendments are made to the Financial Services Act 1986. They relate to the prudential supervision of life and non-life insurance—although in the case of Lloyd's some similar changes will be required to the byelaws.
If I were to attempt to give the House a detailed and blow-by-blow account of the purpose of each regulation, we should probably be here all night. Instead, I have provided the House with notes on the regulations, copies of which are available from the Library. I hope that hon. Members have found those useful. That leaves me free to highlight the more important provisions of the directives, and the implementing regulations, and to offer comment on what I see as the benefits that the directives bring to insurers and consumers throughout the Community.
The third insurance directives established the so-called "single passport" principle for insurance companies. That principle has already been adopted for banks and building societies. It will mean that any insurance company with its head office in a member state of the European Community may carry on direct insurance business through a branch in another member state, or provide direct insurance from one member state into another, on the basis of the authorisation that it receives from the supervisory authority in the state in which its head office is situated. For these purposes, that is called the home state. The immediate benefit of those arrangements for United Kingdom insurers is that, instead of having to comply with the often quite onerous supervisory requirements of each member state where they have a branch, they will only need to submit one return to the Secretary of State in respect of all their business.


Similarly, United Kingdom branches of companies with head offices in other member states will no longer have to submit returns to the Secretary of State. Another benefit is that companies will no longer have to submit their proposed premium rates and policy conditions for prior approval by the supervisory authorities in the member states where they intend to market their insurance products.
The single passport will not extend to companies whose business is restricted to reinsurance business, to certain small mutual companies that are below a specified threshold or to companies whose head office is outside the European Community.
For companies whose head offices are in the European Free Trade Association states of Austria, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and for life insurance companies whose head office is in Finland, the authority of the single passport will be valid throughout the 17 states in the European Economic Area once those states and the European Community have ratified the extension of the EEA agreement. This will require a further set of regulations in due course.
Companies that do not get the single passport will still be able to benefit from other changes in the regulations that I have made recently—notably, the ability to take into account the value of rights under new financial instruments such as derivatives and stock-lending transactions in valuing the assets that they must hold to cover their insurance liabilities.
The single passport procedures are set out in schedules 6 and 7 to the third directives regulations. Even in a single market, it is important for supervisory authorities to know which companies are carrying on business in their countries and for the companies themselves to know what laws will apply to them. The regulations therefore require that an EC company wishing to use its passport in the United Kingdom must be recognised. This means that the company's home state authorities must notify the Secretary of State of its intention to carry on direct insurance business through a branch in the United Kingdom, or to provide direct insurance into the United Kingdom, and supply the Secretary of State with certain prescribed information about its proposed business, its authorisation and its solvency. Similarly, a United Kingdom company must supply to the Secretary of State information about its proposed activities, which the Secretary of State will forward to the relevant authorities in the target member state.
A consequential amendment to the Financial Services Act will ensure that an EC company will be automatically treated as authorised under that Act in the same way as United Kingdom authorised insurers already are.
A fundamental requirement in the directives is that
member States shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the competent authorities have the powers and means necessary for the supervision of the business of insurance undertakings with head offices within their territories…and for the purpose of seeing that they are implemented".
They must also take into account
the need to ensure the sound and prudent management of an insurance undertaking".

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be absolutely essential for the high standard and prudent supervision of insurance companies that Ministers in other member states can reassure British Ministers of the high standards of supervisory regulation

and compliance? Otherwise there will be a danger of lower standards in those countries coming into this country by the back door.

Mr. Hamilton: I understand the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), although they may be misplaced. The Commission will certainly take its policing role very seriously, as will the Government. I am perfectly satisfied that no dangers will arise as a result of our exporting our system of supervision into other parts of the European Community; in fact, that offers great opportunities for our insurance businesses to break into markets which, if not entirely closed to them, have at least placed many obstacles in their path. On the whole, this liberalising measure will be of great benefit not only to European consumers of insurance services but to British business consumers because of the extra competition which it brings. I do not underestimate the fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South has expressed. We will certainly be vigilant to ensure that the interests of the public are fully protected in the opening up of new markets that I have described.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say clearly and objectively that the directives will ensure free trade for British-based insurance firms seeking to do business in life and non-life insurance? On the two previous occasions on which we have had directives that apparently secured free trade, we found, on inquiry, that all kinds of restrictions operated—between mass risks and large risks and also on the initiator of inquiries on life business. Will British-based companies really now have total freedom to seek life and non-life business on the continent—subject, of course, to the derogations obtained by Germany and Denmark?

Mr. Hamilton: My understanding is that the directives will open up the European market in the way that I have described. As the internal market Minister and deregulation Minister in our Government, I am very anxious to take advantage of those opportunities. I cannot guarantee that there may not be attempts to inhibit the working of the market. However, I can assure my hon. Friend—with whom I share many prejudices in this respect—that I will be particularly keen to ensure that the opportunities that I have mentioned are not in any way minimised. If any obstacles are placed before our companies to prevent them from developing in the way that I hope, the British Government will be foremost in seeking to use a crowbar to prise open those markets that may be partially closed to us.
The directives require member states to ensure that insurance companies are soundly and prudently managed —the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South raised. I have listed criteria for sound and prudent management in schedule 1 to the draft regulations. Although the criteria are not, for the most part, new, by bringing them together, I have given them a better focus and proper weight. I have also introduced additional powers enabling the Secretary of State to investigate companies and obtain documents for the purpose of ensuring that the criteria are complied with. Failure to comply with any of the criteria will be a ground for intervention by the Secretary of State.
I have also introduced provisions that will enable the Secretary of State to assist a supervisory authority in another member state to exercise its functions in relation to


the United Kingdom branch of an insurance company under its supervision—for example, by facilitating or assisting in an on-the-spot investigation, or by preventing a company from disposing of or otherwise dealing in any assets that it maintains in the United Kingdom.
In addition, I have introduced changes to the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the authorisation of insurance companies. One new and important provision that I should mention is the power to suspend a company's authorisation in urgent cases—regulation 11. Although the Secretary of State already has a power to withdraw a company's authorisation, the new power will permit a more flexible approach. Companies will be able to make representations against the suspension and if, in the event, the concerns of the Secretary of State that gave rise to the suspension are unfounded, the suspension will be lifted without the need for the company to reapply for authorisation. Thus, the new power should be in the interests of policyholders and companies alike.
We emphasised in the consultative document published last December, and I emphasise again now, that these are reserve powers which I do not expect the Secretary of State to have to use unless genuinely necessary. In the vast majority of cases, United Kingdom insurers are soundly and prudently managed and in practice the provisions should have no effect on them.
A further requirement of the directives is that a person must obtain the approval of the relevant supervisory authority each time he increases his shareholding or voting power in an insurance company above one of several specified thresholds. To implement that, I have introduced the concept of "shareholder controllers", defined in terms of the percentage of the shares or voting rights that a controller holds. A person becomes a shareholder controller if he acquires a holding of 10 per cent. or more of the shares in the company, or is able to exercise 10 per cent. or more of the voting power at a general meeting of the company. Subsequent notifiable thresholds are at 20 per cent., 33 per cent., 50 per cent. and at the point at which the person becomes a majority shareholder controller. Notification and the approval of the Secretary of State is required on each occasion on which control is increased above those thresholds. Notification of decreases below the thresholds is also required.
Another important obligation in the directives, which is already placed on banking supervisory authorities, requires supervisory authorities not to divulge information that they have received in confidence in the course of exercising their functions without the consent of the originator; however, information may be disclosed to certain authorities without prior consent if the disclosure would assist that authority to discharge specified functions. Those permitted disclosures are listed in schedule 2 to the draft regulations.
The provisions on transfers of insurance contracts from one company to another have been revised. Under the principle of home state control, responsibility for authorising a transfer between two companies with their head offices in the EC rests solely with the home state, but is subject to the consent of other member states that have an interest. The rules are, however, unchanged in other

cases. I have found it clearest to set out all the transfer rules in a new schedule to the Insurance Companies Act 1982 —schedule 3 to the draft regulations.
The changes brought about by the directives have provided an opportunity to review the assets that a company may value as cover for its liabilities. In line with developments in other financial services sectors, the directives recognise the increasing use of derivative contracts such as options, futures and contracts for differences, and also stock-lending transactions.
In response to requests from the insurance industry, I have, to a limited extent, deregulated the current provisions to give insurers new freedom to count the value of rights under such contracts as admissible, subject to conditions. Those conditions should go a long way towards ensuring that the severe losses that we read about from time to time, which result from inappropriate use of derivatives, do not happen in the insurance sector.
I have taken account of comments made in response to the consultative document about the proposed new treatment of debts. The regulations that I have made recently have been framed to meet those concerns.
I have also introduced changes to the rules on determination of liabilities to reflect the provisions of the directives.
The directives introduce new rules relating to the make-up of an insurer's required margin of solvency. Companies may take into account cumulative preference share capital and subordinated loan capital, known as "hybrid capital", up to prescribed percentages of that margin. I have not made provision in the regulations for the new rules on subordinated loan capital, as, for the time being, I intend to consider the proposed use of these instruments by companies on a case-by-case basis.
The measures should assist insurance companies, especially mutuals, to raise new capital and to compete effectively with other financial services sectors, while ensuring that their assets and liabilities continue to be prudently valued.
In due course, I intend to consult on further possible deregulation, for example in relation to the form and content of the annual return that insurance companies are required to submit.
A new requirement of the directives is that prospective policyholders should receive certain information about the contract before they enter into it. In the case of life assurance, some information must also be provided to policyholders during the term of the contract. United Kingdom life companies are already used to providing some prescribed information in relation to life policies that are investment contracts and thus covered by rules made under the Financial Services Act. The new requirements of the third life directive are not materially different.
An additional requirement, however, is that some information must now be given during the term of the contract. Some concern has been expressed by insurers, particularly about the requirement for annual disclosure of bonuses. While this is current practice in most cases, some contracts will be newly affected. I have therefore taken insurers' concerns into account in implementing the requirement, so as to minimise the cost of compliance. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important for consumers properly to understand the important aspects of their insurance policies, especially before they commit themselves. The regulations balance that objective with what I recognise is a burden on business.
Finally, on the scope of the regulations, I should mention the two new certificates that I am requiring. First, the directives require member states to
require every insurance undertaking to have sound administrative procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms".
Although many companies do have fully adequate systems, others need to make improvements. Moreover, systems need to be progressively updated to ensure that they remain adequate.
In response to our original proposal to implement this requirement, companies expressed concern that an inappropriate form of certificate would lead to an escalation of audit costs, well beyond what could be justified by the benefits flowing from improved systems. In the regulations that I made recently I have reduced the requirement to a certificate listing the published guidance with which a company's systems comply.
I propose also that, from 1 January 1996, directors should be required to certify the general adequacy of the financial control systems that they have to meet the various regulatory requirements. I need to consult further on the form of such a certificate and will bring forward regulations in due course. This advance notice should prove adequate to allow those companies who need to make improvements to do so in good time.
The third life directive requires life companies to ensure that premiums for new business are sufficient, subject to certain conditions, to meet their commitments to policyholders. In addition to introducing that principle into the legislation, I am requiring the appointed actuary to certify the adequacy of the company's premium rates. It will be important to be able to confirm, in response to any inquiries that we may receive, that a company's rates are adequate, and the certificate should serve to provide that confirmation.
All member states are drafting comprehensive regulations along the lines of those that I have laid before Parliament. Some member states will implement the directives on time, as we will by the approval of these regulations; others, alas, will be late, although for some the delay may only be a matter of a few weeks.
Nevertheless, to ensure that there is no gap in regulation of United Kingdom branches of companies with their head offices in a member state that has not implemented on time, I have included a transitional provision that will allow the Secretary of State to continue to regulate such branches until such time as those states have fully or substantially implemented the directives.
The House has fully supported the single market generally and, in relation to these regulations, the single market for insurance in particular. As I said at the start, the directives reflect closely the United Kingdom system of supervision. With the abolition of prior approval of premium rates and policy wordings, and the reduced annual compliance returns, insurers will have more freedom to operate in the single market and offer the highly innovative and competitive products that they have been able to develop in the United Kingdom over the years. Although in practice there will be no big bang on 1 July, United Kingdom insurers have a lot to offer policyholders in the EC and, before long, the EEA.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend simply bear in mind—as he has sought to do—the fact that one of the difficulties for United Kingdom insurers competing with other investment products that are not insurance policies is

that, even under the regulations to implement the third life directive, UK insurers will be required to produce ever more information, and we do not have an equivalent requirement for regulations to be provided by banks and buildings societies competing with insurers in the provision of investment products? Will my hon. Friend continue to look, as he has in drafting the Government's response to that directive, at the burdens of regulation on UK insurers?

Mr. Hamilton: I need not assure my hon. Friend that deregulation and the burdens that the Government can impose on businesses are at the top of my agenda. Naturally, we must strike a balance—as the Foreign Secretary often says—but the Government may pay attention to differing interests, and the protection of policyholders is vital. We must be certain that when we require firms to fill in forms and provide information to Government, that information is worth collecting and the costs that we impose are justified by the benefits to the public. I assure my hon. Friend that that technique has run throughout my consideration of how we might implement the directives. I am currently looking at a variety of ways in which we can reduce the bureaucratic form-filling burden imposed on insurance companies without prejudicing the wider interests of policyholders and others.
From time to time, particularly with the recent improvements in technology, it will be possible for us to streamline our processes of information obtaining, retrieval and use. I hope that, in time, the costs to insurance companies of the regulatory requirements that the Government impose will diminish. Compared to the current costs of operating elsewhere in the European Community, the highly deregulatory regime that will now be introduced will substantially reduce the costs of British firms. Because they have operated in a much freer, more flexible market in Britain over the years, they should be more nimble of foot and, perhaps, more surefooted in the development of innovative products than their potential competitors across the Channel. A combination of those two things should provide many profitable business opportunities for our companies.
I hope that these regulations will help United Kingdom insurers to remain strong and competitive in Europe through the introduction of home state control, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: There will be heartfelt relief in the financial centres of Europe that, on 1 July 1994 when the directives come into force, they will not have the effect of "Big Bang". We are all grateful to know that, as one Big Bang in the City of London in a lifetime is enough for us all.
The Minister's speech was interesting as he spoke about future regulation in relation to how derivatives affect the insurance sector. I am glad to hear that the Government are concerned about the derivatives market, which is a mystery to us all. Output options and share options can be hedged against different currencies and I surmise that the present fall in the stock market is indirectly caused by margin calls on derivative contracts in the United States. It is important to put on record on the Floor of the House our overall concern about the future of the derivatives market.
My response to the Minister's speech follows on from his winding-up of our previous debate on the second


directive. Those of us who have been through the first and second directives are now happy to be at the third one. When the Minister introduced the second directive, he said that the Government attached high priority to the completion of the single market in insurance. The second directive and the regulations that we are discussing represent a small but useful step. The Minister said that he looked forward to bringing before the House regulations to implement the third directive, which would grant a single passport to European Community insurers and make the single market a reality.
It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister and equally pleasant to speak on this directive without repeating the same speech as I made on the second directive. In creating a single passport for insurers, we are mirroring directives already in effect for banks and building societies. That fact might strike a chord with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). It is now possible for three strands of our financial market—banks, building societies and insurers—to do business in other member states on the basis of the authorisation that they receive in their head office's member state. That will encourage, rather than detract from, the concept of bancassurance.
Over the past few years, we have seen how markets have been changing in that respect. Banks have set up their own life assurance companies; building societies have entered into alliance with life offices; building societies want to become banks; and a bank has even wanted to become a building society—or rather, take over a building society. As the directives flow together, we may see the continuation of the trend towards bancassurance. So, too, will the trend within the global economy of national insurance companies joining forces with continental insurance companies to get the best out of the single market through the directives.
We welcome the news that Commercial Union has sought to avail itself of the advantages of the single market by buying into France. It will obviate its need to enter the market of its own accord with its celebrated initials, CU, which have an entirely different connotation in France. Its acquisition of the whole of Abeille Assurance, the whole of the existing life assurance company, Abeille Vie, and 50 per cent. of the new life assurance business coming through AFER, the French savings association, show the advantages of the single market.
The Minister said that the House has generally supported the single market in the years since the Single European Act 1986. Certain sectors of the House have misunderstood it, but it has received a friendly welcome overall. In the dynamic modern economy that is to deliver opportunity to all its people—not merely to a limited number—as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), we have no hostility to bancassurance.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a specific company's recent acquisition of a French company, but I am sure that he would wish to take the opportunity of joining me in congratulating a range of UK insurance companies which, for many years, have developed interests on the far side of the channel. Several life companies, including one that I used to work for but in which I have no continuing interest, have for many years

had extremely detailed links with, and in some cases ownership of, continental insurance companies and/or savings institutions.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman and for the fact that companies in Germany, Italy and France have involved themselves in our country and have bought into insurance companies here. There is therefore a two-way traffic as a result of the single market and we see that, in an ancient phrase but one which is nevertheless useful, we take in each other's washing when it comes to insurance and we both benefit from the free market.
On the bancassurances, we wish gently to point out to the Government and the Minister that we must worry a little about the consequence of the horizontal mergers or takeovers where the result of such takeovers is that the financial markets are dominated by no more than six or seven of the largest producers and distributors of financial products. Although we have all agreed on the Floor of the House that it is important that the single market should be continued and balanced and that we should all benefit from it, it does not yet offer the celebrated level playing field.
Many insurance companies seeking to make a major move into continental Europe have to be sure of the route that they are taking. Acquisition is one route; going it alone is another. The essential element of a successful penetration of the continental European insurance market is access to distribution—not unlike in our own market. Many of the major broker networks are tied in to existing insurance companies and banks are increasingly moving into the insurance business, so new entrants find it extremely difficult to establish a major foothold.
In relation to the earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, aided and supported indirectly by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), there are other elements to the so-called level playing field. Protection—that pariah to the free market—can also raise its head and may be written into the single market through differing tax regimes. They may reduce the ease with which insurance products can be transported across borders. They may indirectly protect the home market for the local insurance player. Local legal requirements, as regards policy wording and the form of cover that insurers need to provide, are but one further complication that insurers attempting to move into the new market must confront.
Notwithstanding the single market, therefore, the home team, as with most home teams, will continue to have an advantage simply because it is the home team. The footballing cogniscenti are no doubt widespread in the Chamber tonight—we are, after all, no doubt watching the world cup, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said from a sedentary position. In terms of the level playing field, it is rather like Yeovil Town playing Sunderland at home in the FA cup. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) tut-tuts from a sedentary position, but I am sure that as a Whip he wants us all to get home early tonight and would not wish to prolong my speech by provoking me into extending it.
The directives before the House amend mainly, as the Minister said, the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and they also make consequential changes, which were the words that he used, to the effect of the Financial Services Act 1986. We can see that the home member state shall be


solely responsible for the control of an insurance company's financial position, including compliance with solvency margins, technical provisions and matching requirements.
I notice that I have mentioned the phrase, "solvency margins" and the Minister said that those directives would have some impact on byelaws at Lloyd's of London. This is the time of year when we are told that we should be worrying about the solvency margins of Lloyd's. This is the time that we are told that Lloyd's may be in a meltdown situation. This is the time that accountants begin to worry whether Lloyd's is in full compliance with its solvency margins. I am always reassured to know that Lloyd's has about £6 billion of assets and that it can meet its solvency margins many times over, but it is right to reflect on the anxieties that are felt and there is no better place to reflect them than the Floor of the House of Commons.
Lloyd's is an important—an integral—part of our insurance market. It is an integral part of the City of London. We wish the Lloyd's management well in their endeavours to put the past behind them and to get on with the future, but it is right to place on record many of the anxieties.
I was discussing the supervisory requirements in the directives and the ways in which they will affect the regulation of insurance companies whose head office is in our jurisdiction. We are all aware, and I think that we would all agree, that the Government have made a dog's breakfast of their regulatory regime. Yet that is the regime that should govern the substance of the directives. Is it self-regulation? Is it independent regulation? Is it statutory regulation, all regulation being underpinned by the Financial Services Act 1986, which is being amended tonight? Or is the subject too perplexing? Even the City of London had become divided.
Those people who will do business in our country under the directives will know that when it comes to their margin requirements they will look to the Department of Trade and Industry and its 90 or so insurers' supervisors, but to whom should they look to regulate their package of products and the marketing of those products?
We have the Personal Investment Authority. The proposal to establish the PIA has been in the ether for about three years and it has managed to spend about £6 million even before it opens for business. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that it might now be appropriate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce legislation putting in place direct regulation, which would have the advantage that those continental European insurance companies wishing to set up here under those directives might know how they will be regulated. I can only repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central in the debate on private pensions:
The time has come for us to recognise that direct regulation is necessary. By direct regulation, I mean regulation by the SIB which would be answerable to Parliament."—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 1027.]
Reverting to the subject of the PIA, it is my view, and that of Her Majesty's Opposition, that it has yet to satisfy many of its would-be members that it knows the difference between aims and methods, training and competence, costs and standards, public interest and commercial interest, whether they have a prospectus or a game plan, a consultative document or an indicative document—in short, that it knows what it is doing. The question whether

the Department of Trade and Industry should be responsible for insurance supervision or whether that supervision should be part of the work of an overarching statutory organisation is perhaps a debate for another day.
If I may quote my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield again—we are all anxious to have it on record that we are quoting him left, right and centre at this time—
We have to set out a new economic agenda for what will be very shortly a new millennium".
There will have to be a full debate on statutory regulation of the City of London. That will be a part of a new economic agenda as to the appropriate way of regulating our insurance industry, within an overarching framework of statutory regulation.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, when calling for statutory regulation, that the much-vaunted statutory regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States did not stop a large number of extremely complex, and costly to consumers, frauds happening in the USA? He might wish to consider whether statutory regulation, as opposed to the Securities and Investments Board here, would therefore be any answer.

Mr. Bell: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that, in the first instance, we would not propose a full SEC. As for the second, it was through the SEC that the whistle was blown on the Guinness affair. The statutory regulation had a serious consequence in that context. It also would have ensured that there would be no prospect of the sort of catastrophe that has occurred at Lloyd's in the past few years.
As you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as alert as ever—I do not intend to wander too far from the subject of the directives. We are grateful to the Minister for keeping his promise of 12 January 1993. We are glad to see that all member states are introducing the enabling legislation and that France, Portugal, the Netherlands and possibly Denmark and Germany expect to implement the regulations by 1 July. We noted the Minister's hope that other states would follow. We can only say that the mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small, even in terms of regulation through the European Community—or the European Union. Other member states will follow in the next two to three months.
It has long been the ambition of the much-maligned European Commission to make it possible for insurance companies established in any member state to provide services freely throughout the European Union. It has long been the Commission's ambition for insurers to be subject to similar controls in each of the member states where they might wish to open offices. It has long been its ambition for policyholders to have a wider choice of insurers, and to be able to cover their risks—wherever they are situated within the Union—through the insurer of their choice. For the United Kingdom, those ambitions have come closer tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

VOCATIONAL TRAINING: LEONARDO DA VINCI PROGRAMME

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4187/94 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 23rd May 1994, relating to vocational training (LEONARDO DA VINCI programme); shares the Government's view that appropriate transnational actions on vocational training can add value to national training activities by enabling exchanges of best practice; and endorses the Government's view that such actions must be cost-effective and fully in line with subsidiarity, in particular as regards consistency with the recognition in Treaty Article 127 that member states are responsible for the content and organisation of vocational training.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, C.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.)

That the draft Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.)

That the draft Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.)
That the draft Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.)

That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1302), dated 13th May 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and Mr. William Etherington and Mr. Andrew Mitchell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

LIAISON

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew F. Bennett be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Sport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to address a packed Chamber at what I would normally describe as a late hour, but tonight I have to describe it as a ridiculously early hour. Hansard would pick up my lie if I said that it was late when in fact it is particularly early. I know that that is welcome to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I do not wish to extend the debate until 10.30 pm, as I could do if I wished. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that, although I intend to take a little time, I do not intend to take as much as that.
I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) is present, as I know that a constituent of his has a problem similar to the one that I am about to describe. I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), who is concerned about issues relating to this, will also be able to speak if I finish early.
I wish to examine the position in which a constituent of mine finds himself, and to highlight a major problem in the way in which the Football Association conducts itself. An intolerable trading environment has led to a complete lack of free market—not a position that I would expect the Government to support. The Football Association has two positions simultaneously: it is both poacher and gamekeeper, watchdog and profit-maker. It can exclude people from the marketplace, while at the same time entering that marketplace to promote its own products, which may or may not have sponsorship.
Oddly enough, I have received a large amount of post since I took up the matter and secured this Adjournment debate. I confess that I was surprised by the interest engendered by something as small as an Adjournment debate among ordinary people around the country and others involved in businesses. They have written to me drawing attention to difficulties faced by those who want to get their products into the marketplace but are forced to abandon their objective because of the intransigence of the Football Association.
My constituent, Steve Aldridge, received the UK patent for a game called Futbolito—a mini-football game—in 1989. The concept comes from South America, and has been used there. Having seen the game, I believe that it provides a stepping stone to the real game of soccer, giving children basic skills and an understanding of all the necessary features of the game. It is played by small teams using small goals that can be set up outside in limited environments such as playgrounds, or even on playing fields.
In 1989, my constituent contacted the Football Association to ask for consideration to develop the mini-football game for the benefit of the national game. He was told by the FA's director of coaching, Mr. Charles Hughes, that pursuing the project could be of no particular value to the FA; that was after some examination of it. My constituent, however, continued to believe that there was a genuine need and demand for the game, and went on to launch Futbolito in 1992.
In April 1992, my constituent received a letter from the FA saying that it was going to launch mini-soccer, which would be the only—I stress the word "only"—approved game for youngsters in the six to 11 age range. The game


was to be sponsored by Coca-Cola, which I think sets the matter in a slightly larger perspective. Coca-Cola also promoted and sponsored the national soccer show in 1993, at Birmingham's national exhibition centre.
Interestingly, one of the problems encountered by my constituent was the fact that both he and his product Futbolito were prevented from being present. He gathered later on, and I have discovered, that Coca-Cola wanted the mini-football that it had sponsored to have exclusive rights at the event. Only after it withdrew its sponsorship did the organisers tell my constituent that he could demonstrate his game and attend the show. My constituent's problems continue—a catalogue of problems, which illustrate the fact that the FA has a tremendous amount of power. It seems that, with just a nod and a wink, it can restrict the possibilities for people such as my constituent to pursue their rightful business interests.
Despite oral and written approvals of my constituent's teaching and coaching aid by FIFA, and an oral approval of the equipment by the English Schools Football Association, the Referees Association and others such as the Bobby Charlton soccer school, the FA still denies approval for the product. The irony is that in many discussions the ESFA gave my constituent plenty of assistance, expressing the view orally that the equipment was perfectly all right and that it hoped that he would receive FA approval. In trying to secure written approval from the English Schools Football Association, my constituent wrote some 20 letters, but the association did not reply. It was happy to talk on the telephone, but it never put anything in writing. I suggest that that indicates a certain fear of what might happen should it break the line and state in writing that it considered the product good.
My constituent has never sought sponsorship or other finance from the FA. He really only wants approval for his game, so that he can go out and compete with other products in the market. The only product that is FA approved at present happens also to be the FA's product.
Since being denied the FA's approval, Mr. Aldridge has been virtually put out of business. Were it not for his tenacious attitude in making the project work, by now he would have gone under. He has been invited to demonstrate his product at certain venues, in particular at the start of a football match in Yeovil in August 1992 and, later that month, in Loughborough. However, on both occasions he was told at virtually the last minute that he could not demonstrate his product.
Having been refused approval for his product, Mr. Aldridge has found it virtually impossible to demonstrate Futbolito. It appears that once the FA discovers that he is about to demonstrate his product, it find ways to contact the organisers and sponsors and—surprise, surprise—the invitation to demonstrate is hurriedly withdrawn.

Sir Michael Grylls: The dismal and worrying catalogue of events that have beset my hon. Friend's constituent have been almost exactly reflected in the experience of one of my constituents, Mr. Mickey Clarke who lives in Egham. He invented a similar mini-football game and has been treated disgracefully by the FA. My hon. Friend the Minister has been given the facts and I know that he is considering them carefully.
The case of my constituent adds force to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has said. Something should be done. The Football Association seems to be omnipotent. If it were a commercial company

it would be outlawed by the Office of Fair Trading. Indeed, if it were trading across European Community boundaries it would be fined heavily by the Commission. Perhaps the OFT could do something. I certainly support my hon. Friend in all that he has said.

Mr. Duncan Smith: As my hon. Friend clearly explained, his constituent has a problem similar to that of my constituent. Indeed, his constituent has also written to me with copies of his correspondence—not because he expects me to check up on my hon. Friend, but because his case bears such a remarkable similarity to the issues surrounding my constituent's problem. I know that my hon. Friend has assiduously pursued his constituent's case, probably with much the same results as I have achieved on behalf of my constituent. I wish my hon. Friend's constituent the very best of luck, although I gather from the correspondence that he is having tremendous difficulty getting any results. Indeed, he is probably shorter of his objective than my constituent is.
The main problem for my constituent relates to demonstrations. On one occasion he was prevented from demonstrating Futbolito at an English Schools Football Association event literally as he was about to go on to the pitch. After a series of telephone calls from the Football Association, the ESFA was left in that hazy area of not being told directly "thou shalt not", but having it made quite clear that if it were the FA's decision, it certainly would not do so. I gather that in the football world that is tantamount to saying, "Don't do it." The ESFA then withdrew my constituent's invitation as he was about to go on to the pitch to demonstrate the product. Yet before inviting him it knew that he did not have official FA approval. The truth is that the FA did not like the fact that my constituent had been invited to demonstrate his competitive product.
It is difficult for my constituent to promote his product to schools. Imagine his position. He writes to a school and suggests that he goes there to demonstrate his product or talk about it. The school—especially if it is an inner-city school—looks at his literature and thinks the product is a good idea. Then the person reading the literature realises that he does not have FA approval, or perhaps in conversation with him they ask, "Does this product have FA approval?" The answer is no, in which case they say, "Well, we shall probably look instead at the FA approved products," little realising that in fact there is but one approved product, which also happens to be the FA's product. The schools do not understand all that; they simply look for the FA badge of approval. That is right because they want something approved on the grounds that it is reasonably safe and is a good game that teaches children the right skills. That is what they are looking for, but it is not the essence of why FA approval has been withheld.
The FA makes money from its approved version of mini-football. It also sells a variety of other things over which it has control of approval. Like Futbolito, the FA is a limited company and therefore quite legitimately—I do not criticise this—seeks to make a profit from its mini-football game. However, it has a massive advantage as it can at the same time—this is my major point—deny its competitors the official approval that it gives to itself.
There are differences between the two games. One is smaller than the other and in one sense they do not directly compete—yet still approval is not given. What is the FA so


scared of that it refuses to give my constituent an opportunity to compete in the open marketplace? What is so much to be feared that my constituent cannot be allowed to demonstrate his game so that those wishing to buy a game can make a decision on whether his is worth the money, whether it is a good game, whether it is cost-effective and all the other aspects that consumers take into consideration in making a choice? Instead, only one product is available.
I do not want to go into detail about who stole whose idea. That is always a grey area. I am not saying that the FA set out to steal my constituent's idea, although there are disputes on the margins about when its product was devised and whether it got the idea in some part from my hon. Friend's constituent or from mine. The real point is that there should be a proper, competitive marketplace, but the FA is preventing that by refusing people such as my constituent a fair crack at selling their products.
My son and daughter attend an inner-city school in London, which has a limited tarmac playing area about half the size of the Chamber. It would be perfect for my constituent's product, but would not be right for the FA's larger mini-soccer product. Such schools are denied the opportunity to consider Futbolito and therefore to encourage their children to kick a ball around.
I am passionate about the concept of team sports, as is my hon. Friend the Minister. I criticise both this and past Governments for laying less and less emphasis on the need for children to compete with each other, learning what it is like to win at the same time and, more importantly, learning what it is like to lose—to learn to live with failure as well as with success. The best way to do that is go out and kick a ball around or, in the summer, to hit a cricket ball—the sort of things that we used to enjoy doing when we were young, but which are now rarely available for children. They spend far too long sitting in front of computers playing computer games; they have forgotten what it is like to compete.
We must try to reverse that trend. My hon. Friend the Minister is one of the great supporters of the concept of team sports. This debate is not just about my constituent, although his case is vital; it not just about the fact that we no longer have a proper, competitive marketplace, although that is also vital; it is about the fact that at the heart of the problem there is a sickness that affects the way in which we can draw talent from all our children. It is no wonder that we find it difficult at times to get people into coaching and into senior sides and end up producing a side in England, Scotland, or Wales that does not go off to the world cup.
It is ironic that I am holding this debate tonight when I watched television on Saturday night and applauded the Irish for their fantastic effort in beating the Italians. I applauded them because they showed every bit of the determination and drive that we should have done in this country. I do not necessarily blame just the players; I blame the whole system and at the heart of that system is the Football Association, which illustrates that sickness by the way in which it has behaved towards my constituent and others.
I must press my hon. Friend the Minister on the matter because we need to do something about it. I am the last person to say that something must be done, but I have to

say it in this case because we have a problem. It is not only about sorting out how football is played, but about the fact that there is a lack of competition in that marketplace. We are allowing the Football Association to act almost as gods. My hon. Friend and I have had considerable correspond-ence on the matter. Although the Government's position is that it is not their place to interfere in the matter, and I understand that argument, the booklet about mini-soccer states:
The sponsorship of Mini-Soccer by Coca Cola Great Britain has been recognised by an award under the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme for Sport, `Sportsmatch', which is administered in England by the Institute of Sports Sponsorship.
It appears, therefore, that we are putting some money towards the product. I am not questioning whether that was right or suggesting that this sponsorship is in any way is wrong. I am questioning the decision that we should do nothing when clearly something needs to be done. We have an entrée because we gave the FA—reasonably enough, it would be appear—sponsorship to deal with the problem of getting children on to the pitch to play football, so let us ensure that there is proper competition and that there is not unfair use by the FA of its position.
I believe that there needs to be a separation between the FA's right to approve products and its right to produce products for itself. Let us start there. Let us find a way to separate those powers and we may see a Football Association which moves forward to protect and encourage the game across the country. We must do that and get those basics right, because my constituent, who worked very hard and put up a large amount of money to try to get his product off the ground, is being forced towards bankruptcy because he cannot get a fair shot at the market. Most people listening to or reading the debate would think such a situation absurd and I demand that we do something about it: some mechanism must be found to get inside the FA and sort it out.

Ms Kate Hoey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) for allowing me a few moments to speak in the debate. I congratulate him on his persistence in trying to get the topic discussed, because, under the rules of the House, it has been extremely difficult. However, we now have a useful debate raising the subject of the Department of National Heritage's responsibility for sport.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall not take advantage of the fact that we could talk for another hour and three quarters on this topic or widen my remarks too much to go into the Department's responsibility. However, the topic raised by the hon. Gentleman is a useful opportunity to raise one or two points about the Football Association generally, for which the Minister, in his responsibility for sport generally and, especially, for football, which is the national game, loved and cared for by so many millions of people, has ultimate responsibility, even though the FA is responsible for the game.
I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman and his views on Futbolito. I have also been involved—obviously not as much as the hon. Gentleman—with the case. I also know about the other case to which the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) referred.
However, I shall raise first an issue of concern to me: the scheme called Soccerfun. It is also a new, innovative


scheme, which was devised by Mr. Terry Densham. It is in a similar situation, although it has not quite gone to the length of the case about Futbolito. It is also a game for five to seven-year-old boys and girls in family groups. It has been developed, there have been many meetings and it has been started following meetings in Leeds, Watford and Manchester.
The Junior and Family Football Supporters Association asked Soccerfun to introduce sessions to eight clubs during the summer of 1992. It was proposed, if the scheme was successful, to provide the other 67 major football clubs with the results and to recommend the introduction of Soccerfun. The condition, once again, was that the FA had to give approval in writing. Unfortunately, in spite of repeated attempts, meetings and discussions, two years later a dialogue is still continuing, but absolutely nothing has happened. It is just another example of the way in which the FA use its power to control and its power to divide and decide what it wants to do and what is in the best interests of football.
I think that the average person in the country who cares about football would say that the last body in Britain that could organise, care and understand football is the FA, because it has had a series of failures. If people are absolutely honest, they would not blame the England players or even the England manager, but they would blame the system in this country and the FA. The FA is responsible for football in the country and it has not served the game or the supporters well.
There has recently been quite a lot of publicity about the charges and penalties as a result of the difficulties and scandals happening in football, especially relating to the problems at Tottenham Hotspur. Much as I want to see the underhand dealings, the kickbacks, the bungs in the envelopes and such matters sorted out, the way in which the FA has responded and dealt with the problems at Tottenham Hotspur has not done the attempts to get to the bottom of the matter any good whatever.
I remind hon. Members that the FA set up a commission almost a year ago to look into those charges of financial dealings and nothing happened for months and months. Finally, the only occurrence has been that the chairman of Tottenham, Alan Sugar, went to the FA and produced some of the background, which he had found out since he joined the club—I do not want to get into the difficulties between Alan Sugar and Terry Venables—and there was no doubt that Tottenham came clean with the new chairman and produced as much documentation as they could. As a result, the club has been very badly treated. There is no doubt that it should have been fined, although, interestingly, the person responsible for most of the matter—Irving Scholar—is sunning it in the south of France and getting away with absolutely everything. The very least that the FA should have said was that Irving Scholar should have absolutely nothing to do with any football club and should never be allowed to have anything at all to do with football in this country. It has not even said that.
The FA has taken the easy route out. It has punished the supporters; those people who pay their money week in and week out to watch Tottenham, when the team have not been doing especially well and when they have been doing well. Those people have paid their money on wet and cold nights and they have been punished. Indeed, the entire club is being punished for something for which the people who are curently running the club are not responsible. It is extremely unjust. It raises the question whether a vendetta

might be being waged by the FA against Tottenham in particular because of the difficulties that there were between Terry Venables and Alan Sugar. It would not do now, of course, given that Terry Venables has been appointed the manager of England, for him to be in any sort of difficulty. We must question whether the FA is prepared to get to the bottom of the financial irregularities. It should be taking a much more serious view and not picking on one club and using it as a scapegoat.
The FA should be setting up independent tribunals to examine the ways in which players are sold from one club to another. There should be an independent tribunal system. There must be a great deal more control of agents. There was the ridiculous situation over the past few days concerning Eric Hall. I do not think that any player in this country would want Eric Hall to represent him. On the other hand, there are some good agents who are willing to be regulated. They are willing to put all their financial dealings through the FA. The association should be taking the lead from the good agents who want to work properly for the players.
The FA fouled up the appointment of the England manager. It is to be questioned whether it is capable, as constituted, of running the game. It is all very well saying that it is the governing body of soccer and we should leave it to run things.
Soccer is an important part of our sporting and cultural life and it matters what is happening to it. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Minister to be aware of who is running the FA. Who are the sort of people who are running it? Is it good enough to have people like Charles Hughes running the coaching system? The Minister should adopt a much more hands-on approach. He should be doing much more to knock heads together, to lay down guidelines and to insist that certain things are done. Ultimately, the average soccer supporter has only the Minister to help to change things. I hope that he will take on board some of the changes that are necessary.
The way in which the FA has handled the television coverage of soccer is disgraceful. It has allowed television companies to decide when matches will be played. It has played into the hands of people who are interested only in making money. I recognise, of course, that clubs need to be financially sound. We want clubs to have sufficient money to enable them to buy players, for example. In the present climate, however, it is the ordinary punter who is suffering once again. I am talking of the person who goes along to a match, pays his money and tries to watch football. He has to go through the hoop to watch matches on a Monday evening. He travels long distances and pays large amounts of money. Such circumstances should not have been allowed to develop.
One of the problems is that football is being run by people who are still living in the past. They have not moved into this century and they are certainly unprepared to move into the next. They are not in tune with the modern game. We have a responsibility in the House to take an interest in what is going on.
Another problem is that many people, including some hon. Members, do not like criticising the FA because they like getting free tickets. It is wrong that, even in the House, we cannot make it clear that we think that there is a great deal more that could be done to clean out the game and to ensure that it is run by people who have an interest not only


in the players but in the supporters and, most important, in setting standards and targets that will mean that England will be able to qualify for the next world cup.
The current problems lie not with the players or the standard of play but with those who are running the game and with the way in which it is being run. It is not being run in the interests of the players, and certainly not in the interests of supporters.

Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Lady referred to free tickets. I dissociate myself from the general proposition that Members have free tickets. I have never sought a free ticket and I have never been offered one. Indeed, I do not want one.

Ms Hoey: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman, to the hon. Member for Chingford or to the Minister when I talked about some people wanting free tickets. I feel that there is a cosiness, however, about the FA and the establishment generally that runs football in this country.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The problem lies with those who might want the odd free ticket—this is very much part of what I said earlier—and do not want to say something that might mean, whatever they are doing to run their end of football, that the FA might suddenly be breathing down their necks, saying that next time something comes up and it has the power to make a decision, it will decide against them. The problem extends right the way up to what the hon. Lady said about Spurs. It seems that those who are running the organisation see it as their personal sinecure. They seem to think that favours can be granted or not according to whatever is in their interests. It is an outrage and something must be done about it.

Ms Hoey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a cosy establishment complacency that is based on how things were run in the past. The FA is not representative of those who understand football. It has no representative from the Professional Footballers Association. There are very few representatives who have come from the professional game. There is a ridiculous system of ticket allocation. On FA cup day, those who have followed the two teams right the way through often find that they are unable to get tickets for the Cup Final because so many of the tickets go to others who have no direct interest in the two clubs.
Perhaps it is just as well that I did not realise that we would have so much time to debate these issues. With that knowledge, I would have prepared a 45-minute tirade against the FA. I shall, however, sound a warning to the Minister. I am worried about the European championships that England will be hosting in 1996. I am delighted that that is to happen, but I am genuinely worried whether the FA has the capacity to organise the championships in a way that will maximise the benefit to the United Kingdom, including the supporters and football generally.
I am concerned because the FA still refuses to listen. It always acts too late. It reacts only when things have already happened. It is important that the Minister keeps a close eye on how the FA is working towards the championships. I am not talking about problems that relate to hooliganism, for example. Surely we want to maximise

a sporting festival for people in this country and others throughout the world. I have grave doubts about the FA's capacity to do that.
I hope that the Minister will pick up the particular case which this debate is all about, because it is quite wrong that the buck can be passed. The Office of Fair Trading says that the case has nothing to do with it. The Minister responsible for sport says that it has nothing to do with him and the FA continues to get away with basically being the judge and jury. I hope that this debate, short as it is, will give the Minister something to get his teeth into. I am sure that he will welcome doing that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat): May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on the persistence with which he has followed this case? He was in touch with my predecessor as Minister responsible for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and he has spoken and written to me about it. His constituent should be glad, if for nothing else, for the hard work that my hon. Friend has put into this important case.
I am also very glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) who is, typically, also in his place. He and I have had discussions and exchanged correspondence over many months about a similar case affecting his constituent called Mr. Mickey Clarke. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his hard work on behalf of his constituent.
I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) in the Chamber. I congratulate her on the astute way in which she broadened this debate, entirely of course within the proper boundaries. She used the fact that we happened to begin the debate rather earlier than expected to set out many interesting and wide-ranging propositions. I assure her that I will study what she has said extremely carefully.
I will answer in more detail in just a moment the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford about his constituent Mr. Aldridge. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said that she hoped that she had given me something to get my teeth into. She has certainly done that.
I have listened very carefully and with great interest to the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford for Mr. Aldridge and I entirely agree that Futbolito appears to be a well-intentioned scheme for participants of all ages and for a wide range of users such as qualified football coaches, teachers, local community sports developments officers and football clubs at all levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford will know that the concept of Futbolito originated from Colombia where football is played with a small ball on a pitch the size of a basketball court. I understand that Futbolito is already played in around 300 schools and by 19 professional clubs in this country and that it is the intention, as the scheme develops, to introduce local, county, national and, ultimately, international Futbolito championships.
My Department does not, of course, have any jurisdiction to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of properly constituted governing bodies of sport such as the Football Association. As my hon. Friend the Member for


Chingford will be aware, the role of Government is to support and encourage the development of, and participation in, sport through appropriate policies and expenditure programmes. The Government do not, and should not, run sport.
From our previous correspondence and from correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford will be aware that Mr. Aldridge's complaints about alleged anticompetitive practices by the FA have been fully investigated by the Director General of Fair Trading. In October 1992, following allegations that Futbolito demonstrations had been banned by the football authorities, the Office of Fair Trading made inquiries of the FA and the English Schools Football Association and the director general was satisfied that there had been no transgression of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.
The director general also concluded in January 1993 that the FA's action had not breached the relevant competition legislation—the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to review commercial activities in the United Kingdom, identifying possible monopoly situations. Where criteria are met, he may at his discretion refer such situations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation.
Under the Competition Act 1980, the director general may also investigate courses of conduct pursued by individual organisations that may be anti-competitive. I understand that he does not have powers to take up complaints on behalf of individuals; nor can he make judgments on what is fair, unless they raise concerns for competition in the wider context of the market as a whole. The director general was not persuaded that Mr. Aldridge's case raised such concerns.
Hon. Members will know that four home country associations are responsible for football, each of which covers the school, amateur and professional aspects of the sport. The FA, formed in 1863 as the governing body of football in England, is responsible for an enormous range of activities at every level of the game. More than 43,000 clubs are affiliated and the FA has a crucial role in ensuring a healthy and successful base for the national game.
Over recent years, the FA has expanded its activities and stepped up its commitment to the development of young players and the need to invest in the future of the game. The FA's programme for excellence has led to the creation of centres of excellence attended by more than 8,500 students between the ages of nine and 14. The development of that programme has been possible only because of the Football Association's determination to establish a financially secure base for its work. More money is now available to be directed at the grassroots of

the game, where the long-term future of the sport is being secured and underpinned by the Football Association in partnership with a range of other agencies.
More than 100,000 children are coached annually on courses approved by the Football Association and by qualified FA coaches. They participate in a range of schemes, including the soccer star scheme, which is a skills award scheme for boys and girls aged six to 16; the preliminary soccer star scheme, which is for children with disabilities and learning difficulties; and in fun weeks, which are non-residential and residential holiday courses. The FA also runs mini-soccer, which brings me to the subject at the heart of the debate.
It is my understanding that the FA views its scheme, which was launched last year, as an extension of its existing coaching programmes. The aim is to provide a football introduction to boys and girls, with a view to developing a lasting interest in the sport. While developing the scheme, the Football Association has been assisted by a number of other sporting bodies that have recently developed specific schemes to attract the interest of the young. That includes the National Cricket Association, which initiated kwik cricket; the Lawn Tennis Association, which was responsible for the introduction of short tennis; and the Rugby Football Union, which was responsible for mini-rugby.
In partnership with Coca-Cola, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the FA has encouraged clubs, schools, sports centres and youth clubs to open up as licensed mini-soccer centres to create a nationwide network in which children can play safely under supervision. Mini-soccer is the only competitive form of football approved by the FA for under-nines, and it is the recommended game for all under-I Is. I understand that the FA will not sanction any leagues, cups or tournaments; it believes that, at those young ages, the game is a sufficient challenge in itself. The FA believes also that mini-soccer can provide a valuable curriculum resource for the games module of the physical education national curriculum for boys and girls in mixed teams.
The FA is also involved in a series of special projects to encourage participation by certain groups of young people. Those include girls-only coaching courses, a new "football challenge" Duke of Edinburgh award, which is aimed at inner-city areas, and a series of coaching courses for police officers working in areas of high deprivation.
I believe that the Football Association and Mr. Aldridge have the health of football and young people at heart. In common with all hon. Members, I very much hope that their efforts will bear fruit.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Nine o'clock.